mm 


W^'\\ 


'l'Mii',1..!  (lit 


Sill!   lll!^ 


\n>\\. 


tf    ,{  1  r 


mm 
Mm 

lllf 

1 

»K''^fi:;ii:ii;i^'' 

Ipsfjil'i;-/;;!^' 

Wi 

;i';i|'!!:'i';i|i^i 
;;ii;i!i;,i!iii'i!!- 

l;niniii!l- 

W:f]W; 

Ml 


i'!         i 


V     '    1 


i 


L=. 


GIFT    OF 
JANE  Ko5ATHER 


/ 


k 


STUDIES 

IN  THE 

BOOK  OF  DANIEL 

A    DISCUSSION    OF    THE 
HISTORICAL  QUESTIONS 


BY 

ROBERT  DICK  WILSON,  Ph.D.,  d.d. 

WM.     H.    GREEN    PROFESSOR    OF    SEMITIC     LANGUAGES     AND 

OLD  TESTAMENT  CRITICISM 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

NEW  YORK  AND    LONDON 

XTbe  'Rnfcherbocfter  press 

1917 


Copyright,  191 7 

BY 

ROBERT  DICK  WILSON 


ttbe  ftnfcltetbocftcr  press,  flew  l^orft 


INTRODUCTION 

This  volume  is  concerned  especially  with  the  objec- 
tions made  to  the  historical  statements  contained  in  the 
book  of  Daniel,  and  treats  incidentally  of  chronological, 
geographical,  and  philosophical  questions.  In  a  second 
volume,  it  is  my  intention  to  discuss  the  objections  made 
against  the  book  on  the  ground  of  philological  assump- 
tions based  on  the  nature  of  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  in 
which  it  is  written.  In  a  third  volume,  I  shall  discuss 
Daniel's  relation  to  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
determining  the  date  of  the  book,  and  in  connection 
with. this  the  silence  of  Ecclesiasticus  with  reference  to 
Daniel,  the  alleged  absence  of  an  observable  influence 
of  Daniel  upon  post-captivity  literature,  and  the  whole 
matter  of  apocalyptic  literature,  especially  in  its  rela- 
tion to  predictive  prophecy. 

The  method  pursued  is  to  give  first  of  all  a  discussion 
of  some  of  ^he  principles  involved  in  the  objections  con- 
sidered in  tne  pages  following;  then,  to  state  the  objec- 
tions with  the  assumptions  on  which  they  are  based; 
next,  to  give  the  reasons  why  these  assumptions  are 
adjudged  to  be  false;  and,  lastly,  to  sum  up  in  a  few 
words  the  conclusions  to  be  derived  from  the  discussion. 
As  to  the  details  of  my  method,  it  will  be  observed 
that  I  have  sought  in  the  case  of  every  objection  to 
confront  it  with  documentary  evidence  designed  to 
show  that  the  assumptions  underlying  the  objection 


371674 


iv  Introduction 

are  contrary  to  fact.  When  no  direct  evidence  is  pro- 
curable either  in  favor  of  or  against  an  objection,  I 
have  endeavored  to  show  by  analogy,  or  the  production 
of  similar  instances,  that  the  events  or  statements 
recorded  in  Daniel  are  possible;  and  that  the  objections 
to  these  events,  or  statements,  cannot  be  proved  by 
mere  assertion  unsupported  by  testimony. 

In  the  first  chapter,  the  inadequacy  of  the  argument 
from  silence  to  prove  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment contain  misrepresentations,  is  shown  by  giving  a 
resume  of  the  historical  documents  of  the  Hebrews,  As- 
syrians, Babylonians,  Egyptians,  and  others,  in  their 
relations  to  one  another.  A  careful  reading  of  this 
summary  of  the  known  evidence  ought  to  convince  all 
unbiased  judges  that  an  argument  from  the  silence  of 
one  document  as  to  events  which  are  recorded  in  another, 
is  usually  devoid  of  validity.  In  many  cases,  it  will  be 
seen  that  for  long  periods  of  time  there  are  no  extra- 
biblical  documents  whatever;  in  other  cases,  there  is,  for 
long  periods  of  time,  no  evidence  either  biblical  or  extra- 
biblical.  Again,  often  when  documents  of  the  same  time 
are  found,  they  treat  of  subjects  entirely  alien  to  the  sub- 
jects treated  of  in  the  other,  and  hence  have  no  bearing 
on  the  case.  Or,  even  when  they  treat  of  the  same 
subjects,  the  narrators  look  at  them  from  a  different 
point  of  view  and  one  will  be  intentionally  silent  where 
the  other  enlarges  upon  the  topic. 

Chapter  two  discusses  the  objections  made  by  Dean 
Farrar  to  the  very  existence  of  Daniel  on  the  ground 
that  his  name  even  is  not  mentioned  on  the  monu- 
ments of  his  time.  Here  I  show,  first,  that  it  is  not  to  be 
expected  that  the  Jewish  name  of  Daniel  would  ever 
have  been  used  in  Babylonian  documents,  inasmtich  as 
Nebuchadnezzar  changed  it  to   Belteshazzar  on  his 


Introduction  v 

arrival  in  Babylon ;  secondly,  that  the  name  Belshazzar, 
under  which  form  the  name  Belteshazzar  might  be 
written  in  Babylonian,  does  occur  on  the  Babylonian 
tablets  as  the  name  of  several  individuals  and  that 
one  of  these  may  have  been  the  Daniel  of  our  book; 
thirdly,  that  it  is  difficult  to  make  any  possible  identi- 
fication of  Daniel,  owing  to  the  fact  that  his  ances- 
tors are  not  mentioned  in  the  Bible;  fourthly,  that 
even  if  his  ancestors  were  known,  he  could  not  be 
identified  from  the  montunents,  because  on  them  the 
father  or  grandfather  is  never  mentioned  in  the  case  of 
slaves,  or  even  of  foreigners,  except  in  the  case  of  kings 
and  their  children ;  and  lastly,  that  it  is  unreasonable  to 
expect  to  find  the  name  of  Daniel  upon  the  monuments, 
first,  because  the  names  of  slaves  are  rarely  mentioned; 
secondly,  because  the  names  of  slaves  are  never  found 
as  witnesses,  and  those  of  foreigners  but  rarely;  thirdly, 
because  the  annals  and  display  and  building  inscrip- 
tions of  the  kings  never  mention  the  names  of  anybody 
except  occasionally  the  names  of  the  kings  they  conquer, 
of  an  occasional  general,  and  of  the  members  of  their 
own  families.  In  fact,  no  better  illustration  than  this 
of  Dean  Farrar  can  be  found  of  the  fact  that  a  man, 
however  brilliant  as  a  preacher  and  as  a  writer  and 
however  accomplished  as  a  classical  scholar,  is  but  a 
blind  leader  of  the  bHnd  when  he  attempts  to  speak 
upon  such  complicated  matters  as  those  which  are 
involved  in  an  introduction  to  the  book  of  Daniel, 
without  having  first  mastered  the  languages  and  the 
literature  of  Babylon  and  Persia. 

Chapter  three  treats  of  the  silence  of  the  other  biblical 
documents  and  of  the  monuments  as  to  an  expedition 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  said  by  Daniel  to  have  been  made 
against  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim.     It 


VI  Introduction 

will  be  noted  that  in  this  particular  case  of  the  alleged 
silence  of  other  sources,  there  is  a  tacit  overlooking  of 
the  testimony  to  this  expedition  afforded  by  the  frag- 
ments of  Berosus,  who  states  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
in  Palestine  at  the  time  when  his  father  Nabopolassar 
died,  which  according  to  the  Babylonian  system  of 
reckoning  the  years  of  a  king  would  have  been  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  It  will  be  noted,  further,  that 
the  critics  in  their  allegations  of  error  against  the  author 
of  Daniel  have  failed  to  consider  the  whole  matter  of  the 
different  ways  of  reckoning  the  regnal  years  of  a  king, 
and  the  different  times  at  which,  among  different  na- 
tions, the  year  was  supposed  to  begin.  This  frequently 
renders  it  very  difficult  to  determine  the  corresponding 
months  and  years  of  a  king's  reign  in  the  different 
countries,  and  should  make  us  slow  in  asserting  that 
the  third  year  of  a  king  in  one  document  might  not 
be  the  same  as  the  fourth  year  in  another.  Again, 
I  show  in  this  chapter  that  Jeremiah  and  the  books 
of  Kings  and  Chronicles  do  not  purport  to  give  us 
a  complete  history  of  the  times  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  that,  hence,  it  is  not  fair  to  say  that  an  event  which 
is  mentioned  in  Daniel  cannot  be  true  because  it  is 
not  mentioned  in  these  other  writings;  and,  further, 
that  the  monuments  of  Nebuchadnezzar  say  nothing 
definite  about  his  military  expeditions,  except  about 
one  to  Egypt  in  his  thirty-seventh  year,  although  they 
do  show  conclusively  that  he  was  king  of  Syria  and 
many  other  countries,  whose  kings  are  said  to  do  his 
bidding.  Lastly,  it  is  shown  that  in  the  fragments  of  his 
history  of  Babylon,  Berosus  supports  the  statement  of 
Daniel,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  made  an  expedition  to 
Palestine  before  he  was  crowned  king  of  Babylon,  and 
carried  away  spoils  from  Judea  which  were  placed  in  his 


Introduction  vii 

temple  at  Babylon,  and  that  there  is  no  statement 
made  in  Daniel  about  this  expedition  which  is  in  any 
way  controverted  by  any  other  direct  testimony. 

Chapter  four  answers  a  further  question  connected 
with  the  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  against  Jeru- 
salem in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  arising  from  the 
charge  that  the  author  of  Daniel  made  false  inter- 
pretations of  the  sources  known  to  him.  An  exami- 
nation of  the  alleged  sources  of  Daniel's  information 
showed  that  he  does  not  contradict  these  sources  nor 
make  erroneous  interpretation  of  them;  but  that,  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  the  critics  who,  on  the  ground  of 
their  own  implications  and  conjectures  and  sometimes 
of  their  crass  ignorance  of  geography  and  of  the  his- 
torical situation,  have  really  manufactured  or  im- 
agined a  case  against  Daniel.  No  more  astonishing 
example  of  the  fabrication  of  evidence  can  be  found 
in  the  history  of  criticism  than  the  use  which  is  made  of 
the  statements  of  the  Old  Testament  with  regard  to 
Carchemish,  in  order  to  show  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
cannot  have  moved  against  Jerusalem  as  long  as  this 
fortress  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Egyptians.  The  critics 
of  Daniel  have  assumed  not  merely  that  the  Eg^'ptians 
had  Carchemish  in  their  possession,  but  also  that  it 
lay  on  the  way  from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon,  so  as  to  cut 
off,  if  in  an  enemy's  hands,  a  possible  retreat  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar from  Palestine  to  Babylon.  A  knowledge 
of  the  position  of  Carchemish  and  of  the  lines  of  traffic 
from  Damascus  to  the  Euphrates  should  have  precluded 
them  from  statements  so  unscientific  from  a  geographi- 
cal and  military  point  of  view. 

Chapter  five  investigates  the  use  of  the  word  for  king, 
especially  in  the  Semitic  languages.  This  discussion 
shows  that  Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  been  called  king 


viii  Introduction 

before  his  father's  death;  and  will  serve  also  as  an  in- 
troduction to  the  discussion  of  the  kingship  of  Belshaz- 
zar  and  that  of  Darius  the  Mede,  in  that  it  illustrates 
that  there  might  be  two  kings  of  the  same  place  at  the 
same  time. 

Chapter  six  considers  the  objections  made  to  the 
book  of  Daniel  on  the  ground  of  what  it  says  in  regard 
to  Belshazzar.  Here,  it  is  shown  that  Belshazzar,  the 
son  of  Nabunaid,  may,  according  to  the  usage  of 
those  times,  have  been  also  the  son  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar; that  there  is  good  reason  to  suppose  that  he 
was  king  of  the  Chaldeans  before  he  became  king  of 
Babylon;  that  he  may  have  been  king  of  Babylon  long 
enough  to  justify  the  writer  of  Daniel  in  speaking  of  his 
first  year  as  king  of  that  city;  that  the  fact  that  he  is  not 
called  king  elsewhere  by  his  contemporaries  is  simply 
an  argument  from  silence,  paralleled  by  other  instances; 
and  that  neither  the  biblical  sources  outside  of  Daniel, 
nor  the  monuments,  say  that  any  man  other  than 
Belshazzar  was  last  de  facto  king  of  the  city  of  Babylon. 
In  short,  it  is  shown  that  the  evidence  fails  to  sub- 
stantiate the  assertion  that  the  statements  of  Daniel  in 
regard  to  Belshazzar  are  false. 

Chapters  seven  to  thirteen  treat  of  all  the  ques- 
tions that  have  been  raised  concerning  Darius  the 
Mede  and  the  Median  Empire,  showing  that  if  we 
identify  Darius  with  the  Gubaru  of  the  inscriptions, 
there  is  no  objective  reason  for  denying  the  truth  of  the 
biblical  statements  with  regard  to  him.  It  is  shown, 
that  Darius  may  have  been  the  name  of  a  Mede;  that 
he  may  have  been  the  son  of  a  man  called  Xerxes  (i.  e., 
Ahasuerus)  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes;  that  he  may  have 
reigned  at  the  same  time  as  Cyrus  and  as  sub-king  under 
him;  that  he  could  have  appointed  one  hundred  and 


Introduction  ix 

twenty  satraps  over  his  kingdom,  even  though  it  was 
restricted  to  Chaldea  and  Babylonia  alone;  that  he  may 
have  had  a  den  of  lions,  containing  lions  sufficient  to 
have  devoured  the  conspirators  against  Daniel  and 
their  families ;  that  he  could  not  have  been  a  reflection 
of  Darius  Hystaspis,  or  of  any  one,  or  all,  of  the  Persian 
kings  of  the  name  Darius ;  in  short,  that,  granting  that 
Darius  the  Mede  had  two  names  (for  which  supposition 
there  is  abundant  evidence  from  the  analogy  of  other 
kings),  there  is  no  ground  for  impugning  the  veracity 
of  the  account  of  Darius  the  Mede  as  given  in  the  book 
of  Daniel. 

To  particularize,  it  is  shown,  in  chapter  seven,  that 
it  is  pure  conjecture  to  suppose  that  the  author  of 
Daniel  thought  that  Darius  the  Mede  preceded  Cyrus 
the  Persian  as  king  of  Babylon,  or  that  Cyrus  succeeded 
to  the  empire  of  Babylon  on  the  death  of  the  Median 
Darius;  further,  it  is  shown,  that  Darius  the  Mede  may 
have  had  a  second  name,  Gubaru  (Gobryas),  and  that 
he  probably  received  the  government  of  Chaldea  and 
Babylon  from  Cyrus. 

Chapter  eight  treats  of  the  statements  of  Daniel  with 
regard  to  the  part  taken  by  the  Medes  and  Persians 
respectively  in  the  conquest  of  Babylon,  and  shows  that 
they  are  in  harmony  with  the  monumental  evidence. 

Chapter  nine  discusses  the  allegation  that  the  author 
of  Daniel  was  deficient  in  knowledge  and  confused  in 
thought  in  the  statements  which  he  makes  with  regard 
to  the  Persian  empire,  especially  with  regard  to  the 
names  and  number  of  its  kings,  the  absolute  rulership 
of  Darius  the  Mede,  and  the  division  and  number  of 
its  satrapies. 

Chapter  ten  answers  the  assumption  that  Darius  the 
Mede  has  been  confused  with  Darius  Hystaspis,  because 


X  Introduction 

each  of  them  is  said  to  have  organized  his  kingdom  into 
satrapies.  It  is  shown  that  the  satrapies  varied  so  in 
extent,  that  there  may  easily  have  been  one  hundred 
and  twenty  of  them  in  the  dominions  over  which 
Darius  the  Mede  was  made  king;  and  that  Darius 
Hystaspis  did  not  originate  the  government  by  satraps, 
since  the  Assyrian  monarchs,  especially  Sargon  the 
Second,  had  organized  their  possessions  in  the  same 
manner. 

Chapters  eleven  and  twelve  treat  of  the  assumption 
that  Darius  the  Mede  is  a  reflection  of  Darius  Hystaspis, 
By  a  careful  comparison  of  what  Daniel  says  about 
Darius  the  Mede  with  what  is  known  from  all  sources 
about  Darius  Hystaspis,  the  evidence  is  given  to  show 
that,  whatever  else  Darius  the  Mede  may  have  been, 
he  cannot  have  been  a  reflection  of  Darius  Hystaspis. 
In  chapter  eleven  are  discussed  the  names  and  families 
of  the  two  kings,  showing  that  in  these  particulars 
Darius  the  Mede  cannot  have  been  the  reflection  of 
Darius  the  Persian. 

Chapter  twelve  shows  how  the  two  kings  differ  in  the 
age  and  manner  of  their  becoming  king,  in  the  names 
and  extent  of  the  kingdoms  over  which  they  ruled,  in 
their  relation  to  other  kings,  in  their  methods  of  govern- 
ment, and  in  their  personal  characteristics. 

Chapter  thirteen  treats 'of  the  alleged  confusion  by  the 
author  of  Daniel  of  Xerxes  and  Darius  Hystaspis,  and 
of  his  further  alleged  confusion  of  this  alleged  confused 
Xerxes-Darius  with  Darius  Codomannus.  It  treats, 
further,  of  the  alleged  belief  of  the  author,  that  there 
was  a  triumphant  repulse  by  Alexander  the  Great  of  an 
attack  on  Greece  by  this  confused  Xerxes-Darius- 
Hystaspis-Codomannus. 

Chapter  fourteen  gives  the  latest  evidence  to  show 


Introduction  yl 

that  Susa  in  the  time  of  Daniers  vision  was  in  all  prob- 
ability a  province  of  the  Babylonian  empire. 

Chapter  fifteen  gives  the  latest  evidence  from  the 
monuments  and  from  medical  science  tending  to 
confirm  the  historicity  of  all  the  statements  made  in 
Daniel  about  the  fact,  the  character,  and  the  duration, 
of  the  madness  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Chapter  sixteen  discusses  the  theory  that  the  edicts 
of  the  king  are  impossible.  I  here  show  that  those  edicts 
cannot  he  called  either  morally,  legally,  physically,  or 
historically  impossible.  That  they  are  not  morally 
impossible  is  shown  from  analogy  by  the  edicts  of  the 
Roman  emperors,  and  by  the  tenet  of  the  Roman  hier- 
archy that  the  church  may  justly  inflict  on  heretics 
the  penalty  of  death;  and,  also,  by  a  study  of  the 
character  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  revealed  in  his  monu- 
ments, and  of  Darius  the  Mede  as  revealed  in  Daniel, 
in  comparison  with  such  tyrants  as  Henry  VIII  of 
England,  Philip  II  of  Spain,  and  Louis  XIV  of  France. 
That  they  are  not  legally  impossible  is  shown  by  a 
review  of  what  is  known  of  the  laws  of  ancient  Babylon 
and  Persia.  That  the  execution  of  these  decrees  was 
not  physically  impossible  is  shown  by  numerous 
examples  of  similar  cases  given  in  the  histories  of 
Assyria  and  Babylonia.  Many  examples  prove  the 
commonness  of  burning  in  the  fire  as  a  method  of  punish- 
ment. The  possibility  of  the  destruction  of  the  one 
hundred  and  twenty  satraps  and  their  families  by  lions 
is  shown  from  the  fact  that  the  monuments  of  the  kings 
of  Assyria  say  that  they  had  menageries  containing 
"all  the  animals  of  the  mountains  and  of  the  plains," 
including  elephants,  panthers,  and  lions.  Further,  it  is 
shown  that  lions  at  that  time  were  the  pest  of  the 
Euphrates  Valley,  hundreds  of  them  being  killed  in  a 


xii  Introduction 

single  hunting  expedition,  and  that  in  one  case  men- 
tioned by  Ashurnasirapal,  king  of  Assyria,  fifty  young 
lions  were  captured  alive  and  shut  up  by  him  in  the  city 
of  Calach.  Finally,  the  assertion  that  there  is  an  his- 
torical impossibility  involved  in  the  decrees  recorded  in 
Daniel  is  shown  to  be  the  baseless  fabric  of  the  critics* 
imagination,  inasmuch  as  of  the  many  decrees  which 
the  monarchs  of  Babylon  and  Persia  must  have  made, 
only  one  or  two  have  come  down  to  us.  The  opinion  of 
certain  men  to-day  that  these  decrees  could  not  have 
been  made,  must  yield  to  the  positive  evidence.  To 
deny  the  historical  possibility  of  the  decrees  is  a  pure 
case  of  opinion  versus  evidence. 

Chapters  seventeen  and  eighteen  discuss  the  possibility 
of  the  use  of  the  word  ''Chaldean''  in  the  sixth  century  B.C. 
to  denote  the  wise  men,  or  a  part  of  the  wise  men  of 
Babylon,  and  the  relation  in  which  Daniel  stood  to  the 
wise  men.  The  evidence  gathered  together  in  these 
chapters  shows  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
denying  that  the  word  ''Chaldean"  to  denote  a  class 
of  Babylonian  wise  men  may  have  been  employed  as 
early  as  600  B.C. ;  nor  for  denying  that  a  strict  Jew  may 
have  been  a  member  of  the  class  of  Babylonian  wise 
men  to  which  Daniel  is  said  to  have  belonged.  The  use 
of  the  words  for  wise  in  all  the  Semitic  languages  proves, 
that  the  term  is  always  used  in  an  honorable  sense,  and 
that  it  is  a  groundless  supposition  of  the  critics  that  any 
blame  was  ever  attached  by  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, or  by  the  Jewish  scribes,  to  any  class  of  real  wise 
men  to  whatever  nation  they  may  have  belonged. 

Hoping  that  this  volume  may  confirm  the  faith  of  any 
wavering  ones  in  the  historicity  of  a  book  which  was  so 
highly  prized  and  so  often  quoted  by  our  Lord  and  his 
apostles,  and  that  it  may  show  particularly  to  men  who 


Introduction  xiii 

have  a  due  regard  for  the  laws  of  evidence,  how  flimsy 
are  the  grounds  on  which  some  would  reject  the  testi- 
mony and  impugn  the  veracity  of  the  writer  of  Daniel, 
I  send  it  forth  upon  its  mission  in  the  world.  If  it  shall 
have  served  no  other  purpose,  it  has  at  least  accom- 
plished this: — it  has  convinced  the  writer  that  the 
methods  pursued  by  many  so-called  higher  critics  are 
illogical,  irrational,  and  unscientific.  They  are  illogical 
because  they  beg  the  question  at  issue.  They  are 
irrational  because  they  assume  that  historic  facts  are 
self-evident,  and  that  they  can  set  limits  to  the  possible. 
They  are  unscientific  because  they  base  their  conclusions 
on  incomplete  inductions  and  on  a  practical  claim  of 
omniscience. 

Before  closing  my  introduction,  a  few  words  ought  to 
be  said  about  the  sources  from  which  I  have  derived  my 
evidence.  Generally,  it  will  be  observed  that  I  have 
appealed  to  the  standard  editions  of  texts  in  the  original 
languages  in  which  they  are  written.  When  there  exist 
good  translations  as  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  classical 
historians,  I  have  made  free  use  of  these  translations, 
always,  however,  after  comparison  with  the  original 
texts.  In  the  case  of  others,  I  have  secured  as  good 
versions  as  possible,  my  son,  Philip  Howard  Wilson, 
A.B.  (died  June  2^^  1913),  honor  man  in  classics  of  the 
class  of  191 1  at  Princeton  University,  being  responsi- 
ble for  many  of  the  translations  from  the  classical  writers 
whose  works  have  not  yet  been  rendered  into  English. 

In  the  case  of  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  documents,  I 
have  made  use,  where  possible,  of  the  Keilinschrijtliche 
Bihliothek  (denoted  by  K.  B.),  translating  from  the 
German  version,  revised  in  the  light  of  the  transliterated 
Assyrio-Baby Ionian  text.  In  doubtful  and  important 
connections  I  have  consulted  the  original  texts,  so  far 


xiv  Introduction 

as  they  are  published.  This  method  has  been  pursued, 
also,  with  all  other  original  documents;  that  is,  I  have 
used  the  best  version  available,  but  always  in  com- 
parison with  the  original  texts. 

My  hearty  thanks  are  due  to  the  Rev.  Prof.  Jesse  L. 
Cotton,  D.D.,  of  Louisville,  to  the  Rev.  Oswald  T.  Allis, 
Ph.D.,  of  Princeton,  and  to  the  Rev.  J.  B.  Willson, 
M.A.,  B.D.,  for  the  invaluable  assistance  which  they 
have  given  me  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume. 


R.  D.  W. 


Princeton,  N.  J., 
April,  1 91 7. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction iii 

CHAPTER 

I. — The  Argument  from  Silence        .        .        i 

II. — ^Was  Daniel  an  Historical  Character?       24 

III. — Jehoiakim's     Third     Year     and    the 

Argument  from  Silence  .         .      43 

IV. — Nebuchadnezzar's   Expedition  against 

Jerusalem 60 

v.— The  Use  of  the  Word  *'  King  "  .         .83 

VI. — Belshazzar 96 

VII.— Darius  the  Mede  .         .         .         .128 

VIII. — The    Medes    and    the    Conquest    of 

Babylon i45 

IX. — Darius    the    Mede    and  the  Kings  of 

Persia      .         .         .         .         »         .160 

Excursus  on  Words  for  Land  and  People    186 

X. — Darius    the    Mede   not   a   Confusion 

WITH  Darius  Hystaspis  .         .     200 

XI. — Darius    the    Mede    not  a   Reflection 

OF  Darius  Hystaspis  .         .        221 

XV 


"v. 


x^  Contents 

CHAPTBK  PAGB 

XII. — Darius   the  Mede  not  a    Reflection 

{Continued)         .  .  .  .  .238 

XIII. — Other  Alleged  Confusions  of  Kings  264 

XIV.— SusA 276 

XV.    Nebuchadnezzar's  Madness           .         .  283 

XVI. — Were  the  Edicts  of  the  Kings  Possible  ?  296 

XVII. — ^The  Chaldeans 319 

Excursus  on  the  Chaldeans        .         .341 

XVIII. — Daniel  and  the  Wise  Men           .         .  367 


STUDIES  IN  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 


STUDIES  IN 
THE    BOOK     OF     DANIEL 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  SILENCE 

I  SHALL  begin  the  consideration  of  the  historicity  of 
Daniel  and  of  the  book  of  Daniel  with  a  discussion  of 
the  argument  from  silence,  not  merely  because  of  its 
intrinsic  importance,  but  because  of  its  bearing  upon 
many  of  the  objections  made  against  the  existence  of 
Daniel  himself  and  against  the  authenticity  and  genu- 
ineness of  the  book  which  bears  his  name.  Before 
considering  these  objections,  it  may  be  well  to  state 
explicitly  what  is  meant  in  this  connection  by  an  argu- 
ment from  silence.  When  the  argument  from  silence 
is  invoked  against  a  statement  of  a  record  of  any 
kind,  it  is  implied  that  the  statement  is  probably 
not  true  because  there  is  no  evidence  to  be  gath- 
ered from  other  sources  of  information  in  support  or 
confirmation  of  it.  It  is  a  purely  negative  argument. 
For  example,  our  Lord  is  said  to  have  accompanied  his 
parents  to  a  feast  at  Jerusalem  in  his  twelfth  year  and 
to  have  been  present  at  several  feasts  in  the  same  place 
during  the  years  of  his  ministry.    Nothing  is  said  in  the 


2M  ?  :y:<: ' "  T[>^  ^qdk  of  Daniel 

gospel  records  about  his  attendance  at  the  feasts  during 
the  period  intervening  between  his  twelfth  year  and  the 
beginning  of  his  Judean  ministry.  It  would  be  an  argu- 
ment from  silence  to  maintain  that  Jesus  was  never  at 
a  feast  at  Jerusalem  during  this  long  period  of  his  life, 
inasmuch  as  no  mention  of  his  having  been  there  is  to 
be  found  either  in  the  gospels,  or  in  any  other  credible 
document.  But  the  argument  is  clearly  inconclusive  and 
unsatisfactory,  because  it  may  be  used  as  well  to  show 
the  probability  that  he  was  there  at  many,  or  all,  of  the 
feasts  of  the  intervening  years, — that  it  was  his  habit  to 
attend  the  feasts.  Certainly,  the  fact  that  his  presence 
at  a  feast  in  his  twelfth  year  is  mentioned  in  but  one  of 
the  gospels  does  not  render  that  statement  improbable. 
Nor  does  the  fact  that  his  attendance  at  certain  other 
feasts  during  the  years  of  his  ministry  is  stated  in  but 
one  of  the  four  gospels  render  such  an  attendance 
improbable.  The  commands  laid  upon  the  Israelites  to 
go  up  three  times  a  year  to  the  feasts,  the  rigid  observ- 
ance of  these  commands  by  other  Israelites  of  that 
period,  and  the  well-known  obedience  of  our  Lord 
to  the  injunctions  of  the  law,  would  make  it  proba- 
ble that  he  observed  the  feasts.  The  fact  that  he  is 
said  to  have  been  present  at  several  of  them  would 
imply  that  he  probably  was  present  at  more.  But 
the  mere  failure  of  more  than  one  of  the  sources,  or 
even  of  all  of  them  put  together,  to  mention  his  attend- 
ance at  a  given  feast  during  the  whole  period  from  his 
twelfth  year  onward,  cannot  be  regarded  as  proof  of 
his  absence  from  it. 

The  failure,  therefore,  of  any  given  authority  to 
mention  an  event  recorded  in  another,  or  the  fact  that  a 
given  event  is  recorded  in  only  one  authority,  while 
others  pass  it  by  in  silence,  does  not  prove  that  the 


The  Argument  from  Silence  3 

event  did  not  occur.  Most  events  of  antiquity  of  which 
we  have  any  knowledge  are  mentioned  in  but  one 
contemporary  source  of  information.  For  most  of  the 
history  of  Cyrus,  Cambyses,  Smerdis,  Darius,  and 
Xerxes,  we  are  absolutely  dependent  for  our  informa- 
tion upon  Herodotus,  often  at  best  a  second-hand  and 
unreliable  source.  For  Artaxerxes  I,  Darius  II,  and  the 
first  part  of  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes  II,  we  have  the 
fragments  of  Ctesias,  the  partial  accounts  of  Xenophon, 
and  allusions  and  short  references  in  Thucydides  and  a 
few  other  writers.  For  the  history  of  Assyria  and 
Babylonia,  and  for  that  of  Syria,  Phenicia,  and  Egypt 
before  500  B.C.,  we  have  no  historian,  strictly  so-called, 
either  native  or  foreign,  who  was  contemporaneous  with 
the  events  which  transpired.  For  the  history  of  the 
Hittites  and  for  that  of  Elam,  Lydia,  Media,  and  Persia, 
we  have  no  native  historians,  of  any  age,  whether  con- 
temporaneous or  not.  For  the  history  of  all  of  these 
countries  from  500  B.C.  to  300  B.C.,  we  are  limited  as  to 
contemporaneous  historians  to  the  Greeks,  especially 
to  Herodotus,  Ctesias,  Thucydides,  and  Xenophon. 
About  300  B.C.,  a  native  Egyptian,  Manetho  by  name, 
wrote  in  Greek  what  purported  to  be  a  history  of  Egypt 
from  the  earliest  times,  which,  he  asserted,  he  had  de- 
rived from  the  records  of  the  Egyptians.  About  the 
same  time,  also  in  Greek,  Berosus  wrote  a  history  of  the 
Babylonians;  Menander,  a  history  of  Tyre;  and  Nico- 
laus,  a  history  of  Damascus.  Unfortunately,  fragments 
only  of  these  historians  have  been  preserved  to  us, 
mostly  excerpts  found  in  Josephus  and  Eusebius. 

But  while,  strictly  speaking,  we  have  no  histories 
from  any  of  the  nations  who  came  into  contact  with  the 
ancient  Israelites,  we  have  from  some  of  them  a  large 
number  of  docimients  affording  us  for  certain  periods 


4  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  sources,  or  materials,  from  which  to  construct  a 
more  or  less  continuous  history,  and  to  obtain  for 
certain  epochs  and  individuals  a  more  or  less  satisfac- 
tory knowledge  of  their  civilization  and  especially  of 
their  political  conditions  and  relations.  The  relative 
and  even  the  absolute  chronology  of  the  times  in  which 
the  Israelites  flourished  is  becoming  clearer  and  more 
definite.  The  geographical  terminology  and  limitations 
are  becoming  known.  The  laws,  manners,  customs, 
science,  art,  and  religion  are  becoming  revealed.  Some 
kings  of  Assyria,  such  as  the  Tiglath-Pilesers,  the  Shal- 
manesers,  Ashurnasirpal,  Sargon,  Sennacherib,  Esar- 
haddon,  and  Ashurbanipal  have  left  us  annals  which 
supply  the  place  of  histories  and  cause  these  kings  to 
stand  out  before  us  as  real  characters.  Hammurabi, 
Merodach-Baladan,  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  Nabunaid, 
kings  of  Babylon,  have  left  us  inscriptions  from  which 
we  can  in  a  measure  construct  their  biographies.  The 
inscriptions  of  Nabunaid,  Cyrus,  and  Darius  Hystas- 
pis  enable  us,  also,  to  supplement  what  the  Greek 
historians  and  the  biblical  writers  have  to  say  about  the 
early  days  of  Persia;  while  the  Egyptian  and  Phenician 
records,  though  not  as  satisfactory,  give  us  at  least  a 
chronological  background  and  check  for  much  of  the 
history.  The  records  of  the  Hittites,  Lydians,  and 
Elamites,  also,  are  being  resurrected  in  part  from  the 
graves  of  oblivion,  and  even  the  Arabian  deserts  are 
yielding  up  their  long-buried  secrets. 

But  when  all  these  discoveries  are  taken  into  con- 
sideration, they  present  at  best  but  a  very  imperfect 
view  of  the  general  or  particular  history  of  the  nations 
of  antiquity,  that  preceded  the  empires  of  Greece 
and  Rome.  It  is  impossible  as  yet  to  write  a  continuous 
history  of  any  one  of  them.     The  records  are  so  in- 


The  Argument  from  Silence         ,    5 

complete  and  sporadic  that  they  fail  frequently  to  give 
us  information  where  we  most  desire  to  have  it.  More- 
over, when  we  compare  the  records  of  one  coimtry  with 
those  of  another,  we  find  that  most  frequently  those  of  a 
given  country  fail  to  mention  matters  which  are  found 
recorded  at  length  in  the  documents  of  another.  Most  of 
them  abstain  from  mentioning  occurrences  derogatory 
to  the  dignity  of  their  kings  or  to  the  honor  of  their 
country.  It  is  often  only  from  silence  or  inference  that 
we  can  supply  the  gaps,  which  indicate  defeat  in  the 
midst  of  victory,  or  periods  of  decay  lying  between 
periods  of  comparative  prosperity.  The  silence  of  one 
record,  therefore,  is  no  disproof  of  the  accuracy  or 
truthfulness  of  another.  It  does  not  even  show  that 
the  writer  of  the  record  was  not  cognizant  of  the  event. 
It  is  simply  and  absolutely  no  evidence  at  all. 

In  order  to  show  the  futility  of  the  argtmient  from 
silence  when  adduced  against  the  trustworthiness  of 
an  event,  or  the  existence  of  a  person,  mentioned  in  the 
Old  Testament  records,  and  as  a  special  introduction  to 
the  discussion  of  the  following  chapters  which  are 
chiefly  concerned  with  proving  the  veracity  of  the 
statements  of  the  book  of  Daniel  with  regard  to  his- 
torical matters,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  give  a  series  of 
parallels  illustrating  the  fact  of  the  silence  of  certain 
documents  with  reference  to  the  statements  made  in 
others. 

I.  In  the  Scriptures  themselves  many  examples  can  be 
cited  of  the  silence  of  one  book  with  regard  to  an  event 
which  is  mentioned  in  another.  For  example,  in  Isaiah 
XX,  I,  Sargon  is  called  king  of  Assyria,  although  he  is  not 
mentioned  elsewhere  even  by  name.  In  view  of  the 
fact  that  Sargon  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  kings  of 
Assyria;  that  according  to  the  monuments  it  was  he, 


6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

or  his  general,  who  actually  captured  the  city  of 
Samaria,  which  Shaknaneser,  his  immediate  predecessor, 
had  besieged;  and  that  he  reigned  from  722  B.C.,  the 
year  of  Samaria's  fall,  till  705  B.C.,  i.  e.,  through  a  large 
part  of  Hezekiah's  reign,  this  silence  of  the  Scriptures 
with  regard  to  him  is  a  noteworthy  fact,  especially 
since,  according  to  his  own  inscriptions,  Sargon  fought 
with  Gaza,  Ashdod,  Samaria,  Damascus,  Egypt, 
and  other  powers  in  the  immediate  neighborhood  of 
Jerusalem. 

.  Again,  it  is  said  in  Ezra  iv,  10,  that  the  great  and 
noble  Asnapper  brought  various  peoples  over  and  set- 
tled them  in  Samaria.  Whoever  this  Asnapper  may 
have  been,  he  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, unless  he  be  the  same  as  ''Esarhaddon,  king  of 
Assyria"  who,  according  to  Ezra  iv,  2,  had  brought  the 
inhabitants  of  Samaria  thither.  But  if  Asnapper  be 
Esarhaddon,  this  transaction  of  his,  so  great  in  its 
bearing  on  the  history  of  the  Jews,  is  not  mentioned 
elsewhere  in  the  Scriptures.  Esarhaddon,  it  is  true,  is 
named  in  2  Kings  xix,  37  and  in  the  parallel  passage,  Is. 
xxxvii,  38,  as  the  son  and  successor  of  Sennacherib,  and 
is  referred  to  in  2  Chron.  xxxiii,  11 -13  as  the  "king  of 
Assyria"  who  captured  and  carried  captive  to  Babylon 
and  afterwards  released  Manasseh,  king  of  Judah;  but 
nothing  is  said  in  any  of  these  books,  or  elsewhere,  of  a 
settlement  of  nations  made  by  him,  or  by  anyone  under 
him,  in  Samaria,  or  in  any  other  place.  If  the  importa- 
tion described  in  2  Kings  xvii,  24-41  refers  to  this 
event,  it  is  remarkable  that  out  of  the  five  names  of  the 
peoples  imported,  as  given  in  Kings,  only  one,  that  of 
Babylon,  should  be  given  in  the  list  of  names  found  in 
Ezra  iv,  9,  10.  If,  however,  as  is  more  probable, 
Asnapper   be   Ashurbanipal,    the   successor   of   Esar- 


The  Argument  from  Silence  7 

haddon,  this  transaction  of  his  is  mentioned  nowhere 
else,  either  in  the  Scriptures  or  in  the  monuments. 

II.  Parallels  are  numerous,  also,  where  the  Scrip- 
tures are  silent  as  to  events  or  persons  that  are  men- 
tioned on  the  Monuments,  For  example,  Shalmaneser 
III  of  Assyria  (860-825  B.C.)  mentions  a  campaign 
against  the  king  of  Damascus  and  his  allies,  among 
whom  was  Ahab  of  Israel,  who  contributed  2000  chariots 
and  10,000  warriors  to  the  army  of  Hadadezer,  king  of 
Damascus. '  The  Scriptures  do  not  mention  this  event 
in  the  career  of  Ahab,  nor  Shalmaneser's  five  later 
campaigns  against  Damascus  and  her  allies  in  849,  848, 
845,  842  (?),  and  839  B.c.^ 

Shalmaneser  claims  also  that  in  his  eighteenth 
year,  842  B.C.,  he  received  the  tribute  of  Jehu,  son  of 
Omri.3  No  mention  of  this  is  found  in  the  Scriptures. 
Again,  Sargon  says  that  he  subdued  the  land  of  Judah-* 
although  there  is  no  mention  in  the  Scriptures  of  this 
conquest  and  only  one  mention  of  his  name,  to  wit,  in 
Isaiah  xx,  i. 

III.  Further,  the  Scriptures  in  general  are  silent  as 
to  the  history  of  the  great  world  monarchies,  and  also 
of  the  smaller  kingdoms,  in  the  midst  of  which  the 
Israelites  were  placed. 

For  example,  of  the  history  of  Egypt  from  Solomon's 
time  down  to  the  time  of  Alexander,  only  a  very  few 
persons  and  events  are  named  in  the  Scriptures.  ^ 

»  Monolith  Inscription^  KB  i,  172. 

'  Winckler's  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyrtdt  pp.  220,  221. 

3  III  R  5,  No.  6;.KB  i,  140,  150.  -•  KB  ii,  36. 

•  *  (i)     Solomon  married  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,* 

for  whom  he  built  a  special  house  outside  of  the  city  of  David,  ^  and  for 

whom  he  received  as  dower  the  city  of  Gezer.  J    Solomon  had  commer- 

»  I  Kings  iii,  i.  »  I  Kings  vii,  8;  2  Chron.  viii,  11. 

5  I  Kings  ix,  16. 


8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

IV.  The  instances,  also,  are  numerous  where  the 
Scriptures  mention  events  and  persons  that  are  not 
mentioned  on  the  monuments.' 

Among  persons  we  need  only  name  Abraham,  Lot, 
Isaac,  Ishmael,  Jacob,  Esau,  Joseph,  Moses,  Aaron,  all 
the  judges,  and  their  antagonists;  all  the  prophets;  Saul, 
David,  Solomon,  and,  in  fact,  all  the  kings  of  both 
Israel  and  Judah,  except  Azariah,  Ahaz,  Hezekiah,  and 

cial  dealings  with  Egypt,  especially  in  horses.*  The  king  of  Egypt 
received  Hadad,  the  Edomite  of  the  king's  seed  in  Edom,  gave  him 
houses  and  lands,  and  for  a  wife  the  sister  of  Tahpanes,  his  queen;  and 
a  son  of  Hadad,  Genubath  by  name,  the  issue  of  this  marriage,  was  among 
the  king  of  Egypt's  sons  in  the  house  of  Pharaoh.^  Jeroboam,  the 
son  of  Nebat,  having  fled  from  the  wrath  of  Solomon,  was  received  by 
Shishak,  the  then  king  of  Egypt,  and  remained  in  Egypt  until  the  death 
of  Solomon.  3 

(2)  In  the  reign  of  Rehoboam,  we  are  told  that  Jeroboam  returned 
out  of  Egypt  to  Shechem  at  the  summons  of  the  people  <;  and  that 
Shishak,  in  Rehoboam 's  fifth  year,  came  up  against  Jerusalem  and  took 
away  all  the  king's  treasures,  s  and  captured  all  his  fenced  cities,  <*  and 
made  his  people  servants  of  the  king  of  Egypt. ' 

(3)  In  the  reign  of  Asa,  Zerah  the  Cushite,  came  against  Judah  and 
was  defeated  at  Mareshah.  * 

(4)  Hoshea,  king  of  Israel,  conspired  against  Shahnaneser,  king  of 
Assyria,  and  sent  messengers  to  So,  king  of  Egypt. ' 

(5)  The  Rabshakeh  of  Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria,  accused  Heze- 
kiah of  trusting  for  help  to  the  king  of  Egypt.  Sennacherib  heard  that 
Tirhakeh,  king  of  Ethiopia,  had  come  out  against  him." 

(6)  Thebes  {No)  was  captured  and  her  inhabitants  carried  away  into 
captivity.  *  ^ 

(7)  In  Josiah's  days,  Pharaoh-Necho,  king  of  Egypt,  came  up  against 
the  king  of  Assyria  to  the  river  Euphrates;  and  king  Josiah  went  against 
him  and  met  him  at  Megiddo." 

»  Rawlinson's  Bampton  Lectures  for  1859. 


'  I  Kings  X,  28,  29;  2  Chron.  i,  16,  17;  ix,  28.  »  i  Kings  xi,  14-22. 

«  I  Kings  xi,  26,  40.  4  I  Kings  xii,  2-20 

«  I  Kings  xiv,  25,  26;  2  Chron.  xii,  9.  6  2  Chron.  xii,  4. 

7  2  Chron.  xii,  8.            «  2  Chron.  xiv,  9-15.  »  2  Kings  xvii,  1-4. 

"  2  Kings  xviii,  19-21;  xix,  9,  10.  ««  Nahum  iii,  8-10. 
"  2  Kings  xxiii,  27-34. 


The  Argument  from  Silence  9 

Manasseh,  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  Omri,  Ahab, 
Jehu,  Menahem,  Pekah,  and  Hoshea,  of  the  kingdom  of 
Israel.  Nor  do  we  find  on  the  monuments  the  names  of 
Zerubbabel,  Daniel,  Esther,  Mordecai,  Ezra,  or  Ne- 
hemiah,  nor  of  any  of  the  high  priests  from  Aaron  down 
to  Jaddua,  except  of  Johanan,  the  predecessor  of  the 
last  named. '  Nor  do  we  find  in  any  hitherto  discovered 
monuments  the  names  of  Jabin,  king  of  Hazor,  of 
Barak  and  Eglon,  kings  of  Moab,  of  Cushan-Rishathaim, 
king  of  Aram-Naharaim,  nor  of  Nahash,  Hanun,  and 
Baalis,  kings  of  the  Ammonites. 

Among  events  not  mentioned  except  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, are  the  sojourn  in  Egypt,  the  plagues,  the  exodus, 
the  wanderings,  the  conquest,  the  wars  of  the  Judges 
and  of  David  and  Solomon,  the  expedition  of  Zerah, 
king  of  Ethiopia  (Cush),  the  wars  of  Israel  and  Judah 
with  each  other  and  with  the  immediately  surrounding 
tribes  and  cities  (except  what  is  recorded  on  the  Mo- 
abite  stone),  the  whole  story  of  the  relations  between 

(8)  Nebuchadnezzar  defeated  Necho's  army  at  Carchemish  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.^ 

(9)  Vhaxdioh-Hophra  was  to  be  delivered  into  the  hands  of  his 
enemies. ' 

(10)  Vhaxa.oh-Hophra's  army  caused  the  raising  for  a  short  time  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  siege  of  Jerusalem ';  but  the  Egyptians  were  soon 
compelled  to  return  to  Egypt.  ^ 

(11)  After  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  Johanan,  the  son  of  Kareah  and  all 
the  captains  of  the  forces  of  the  Jews  and  all  the  people,  men  and  women 
and  children,  and  the  king's  daughters,  and  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  and 
his  scribe  Baruch,  went  down  to  Egypt  to  the  city  of  Tahpanhes. « 

(12)  Jeremiah  prophesied  at  Tahpanhes,  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
would  set  his  throne  upon  the  stones  that  he  had  hidden  at  that  place*; 
and  that  the  men  of  Judah  who  had  come  down  to  Egypt  should  be 
consuanedthere.7 

'  Sachau  Aramdische  Papyrus,  p.  5. 

*  Jer.  xlvi,  2.         »  Jer.  xliv,  30.         ^  Jer.  xxxvii,  5.  *Id.,  v.  7. 

s  Jer.  xliii,  5-7.  *  Id.,  v.  10.  '  Jer.  xliv,  27. 


lo  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Judah  and  Babylon  from  Merodach-Baladan  down  to 
Cyrus,  and,  also,  of  those  between  the  Jews  and  the 
Persians  in  general,  and  in  particular,  except  the  infor- 
mation supplied  by  the  lately  discovered  Egyptian 
papyri. 

V.  There  are  numerous  decades  and  even  centuries 
of  Israelitish  history  as  to  which  there  is  a  universal 
silence  in  the  Scriptures,  For  example,  nothing  is 
stated  as  to  the  history  of  the  people  during  their  long 
sojourn  in  Egypt,  except  a  long  account  of  why  they 
went  there  and  another  of  why  and  how  they  came  out. 
Thirty-eight  years  of  their  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  are 
relieved  by  scarcely  a  notice  of  events.  The  same  is 
true  of  numerous  decades  in  the  time  of  the  judges, 
and  of  long  periods  of  time  in  the  history  of  nearly  all 
the  great  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah.  The  forty-seven 
chapters  of  the  books  of  Kings  contain  all  that  is  said 
of  the  history  of  Israel  from  the  accession  of  Solomon 
to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem!  Seven  verses  only  are 
devoted  to  the  events  of  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II,  who 
was  the  greatest  king  of  the  Northern  Kingdom  and 
ruled  forty  years ;  and  a  like  number  to  those  of  Aza- 
riah,  king  of  Judah,  who  reigned  for  fifty- two  years! 
Eighteen  verses  only  are  given  to  the  fifty-five  years 
of  Manasseh,  most  of  them  taken  up  with  a  descrip- 
tion of  his  idolatry  and  of  the  punishment  certain  to 
follow.  ^ 

VI.  There  are  numerous  decades  and  centuries  of 
Israelitish  history,  as  to  which  there  is  absolute  silence 
on  the  Monuments, 

For  example,  on  the  Egyptian  monuments,  there  is 
but  one  reference  to  Israel  down  to  the  time  of  Shishak, 
that  is,  in  the  song  of  triumph  of  Merenptah,  in  which 

«  2  Kings  xxi,  1-18. 


The  Argument  from  Silence  ii 

he  says:  "The  people  of  Israel  is  laid  waste,  their 
crops  are  not."*  These  two  monarchs,  are  separated, 
according  to  Petrie,  by  a  period  pf  250  years.  After 
Shishak,  there  is  no  reference  on  the  Egyptian  monu- 
ments to  any  relations  between  Egypt  and  either 
Israel  or  Judah. 

The  first  mention  of  the  Israelites  on  the  As- 
syrian monuments  is  that  by  Shalmaneser  III 
in  the  narrative  of  his  campaign  made  in  854 
B.c.^  Twelve  years  later,  he  received  the  tribute 
of  Jehu  the  son  of  Omri.  Then,  there  is  silence  for 
about  forty  years,  till  Adad-Nirari  mentions  "the 
land  of  Omri.'*^  The  next  notice  is  more  than  sixty 
years  later  in  the  records  of  Tiglath-Pileser  IV,  who 
mentions  Jauhazi  of  the  land  of  Judah  as  among  his 
tributaries, ''  and  says  that  he  ruled  over  all  lands  from 
the  rising  of  the  sun  to  the  land  of  Egypt.  ^  He  received, 
also,  the  tribute  of  Menahem  of  the  city  of  Samaria,*^ 
and  speaks,  on  a  fragment,  of  the  land  of  Beth-Omri,  all 
of  whose  inhabitants,  together  with  their  possessions,  he 
carried  away  to  Assyria,  having  killed  Pekah  their  king 
and  set  up  Hoshea  in  his  place.  ^  Shalmaneser  IV,  the 
king  who  besieged  Samaria,  reigned  for  five  years 
(727-722  B.C.),  but  has  left  to  us  but  one  inscription.^ 
Sargon,''  tells  of  his  subjugating  Judah***;  and  that  he 
besieged  and  took  Samaria,  adding,"  that  he  carried 
27,290  men   away  into   captivity   with   50   chariots, 

«  Petrie,  History  of  Egypt,  m,  1 14. 

=»  Pinches,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Historical  Records 
of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pp.  329-332. 

3  Stone  Inscription  of  Calah,  12.  *  Nimrud,  61. 

s  Id.,  3,  4.  «  Annals,  50.  7  KB  ii,  31,  32. 

8  This  is  on  a  lion's  weight,  and  gives  nothing  but  the  words,  "Palace 
of  Shalmaneser,  king  of  Assyria;  two  minas  of  the  king"  (KB  ii,  32). 

'  Nimrud  Inscription.         * "  A  nnals.         ^  *  Display  Inscription,  24. 


12  The  Book  of  Daniel 

leaving  the  remainder  in  possession  of  their  goods, 
but  appointing  over  them  his  own  officials  and  imposing 
on  them  the  tribute  which  they  had  formerly  paid. 
He  adds,  that  he  plundered  the  whole  land  of  Bit-Omri' ; 
that  he  conquered  Samaria  and  the  whole  land  of 
Bit-Omri,  ^  and  finally,  ^  that  he  carried  away  captive 
and  settled  in  the  city  of  Samaria  the  people  of  Tamud, 
Ibadidi,  Marsimani,  Haiapa,  and  the  distant  Arbai, 
who  inhabited  the  wilderness,  who  knew  neither  scholar 
nor  scribe,  and  who  had  never  before  brought  tribute  to 
any  king. 

The  references  to  Judah  and  its  affairs  by  Sennacherib 
are  numerous 4;  but  from  his  death  in  680  B.C.  to  the  fall 
of  Nineveh  about  606  B.C.,  the  only  mention  of  Judah 
is  found  in  the  parallel  lists  of  Esarhaddon  and  Ashur- 
banipal,  where  Manasseh  is  called  by  the  former,  ''King 
of  the  city  of  Judah,'*  and  by  the  latter,  *'  King  of  the  land 
of  Judah/*  s  Esarhaddon  informs  us,  indeed,  that  he  was 
king  of  the  kings  of  Egypt,  of  Patros,  and  of  Ethiopia,  ^ 
and  of  all  the  kings  of  the  land  of  the  Hittites,  including 
Manasseh  king  of  Judah.  ^  Ashurbanipal,  son  of  Esar- 
haddon, says,  also,  that  his  father  entered  Egypt  and 
overthrew  Tirhakeh,  king  of  Ethiopia,  and  destroyed  his 
army,  conquering  both  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  and  taldng 
countless  prisoners,  changing  the  names  of  their  cities, 
and  giving  them  new  names,  entrusting  his  servants  with 
the  government  and  imposing  tribute  upon  them.  ^  He 
names,  moreover,  their  kings  and  the  cities  they  ruled 
over,  9  and  tells  of  his  conquest  of  Tyre. '  "^  He  mentions, 
further,  Psammetichus,  king  of  Egypt,  his  revolt  and 

« Hall  XIV.  a  Pavement  Inscription,  IV. 

3  Annals,  94-97.  4  KAT,  285-332. 

5  KAT,  354-357.  and  KB  ii,  49,  131,  and  239. 

6  KAT,  336,  and  KB  ii,  151.  7  KB  ii,  149. 

8 KAT,  338,  and  KB  ii,  159-169.      '/J.,  161-163.      "/i.,  169-171. 


The  Argument  from  Silence  13 

his  overthrow;'  and  his  waxs  with  the  grandsons  of 
Merodach-Baladan,  king  of  the  Chaldeans;^  and 
with  the  kings  of  the  Arabians,  Edom,  Ammon,  Moab, 
and  Nabatea.^  Yet,  except  the  mention  of  Manasseh 
as  being  among  the  twenty-two  vassals  of  the  land  of 
the  Hittites,  no  notice  of  Judahis  found  on  the  Assyrian 
montiments  after  about  685  B.  c. ;  that  is,  after  the 
reigns  of  Hezekiah  and  Sennacherib. 

On  the  Babylonian  doctiments,  neither  Israel,  nor 
Judah,  nor  anyone  nor  anything  connected  with 
either,  is  ever  mentioned;  though  we  know  from 
one  fragment  of  an  historical  inscription  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar that  he  invaded  Egypt. -♦  Nabunaid,  also, 
speaks  of  the  kings  of  Phenicia^  and  of  the  tribute 
of  the  kings  of  the  land  of  Amurru;^  and  says  that  he 
mustered  the  scattered  peoples  (ummania  rapshatt) 
from  Gaza  on  the  frontier  of  Egypt  by  the  Upper  Sea  to 
beyond  the  Euphrates  as  far  as  the  Lower  Sea. 

VII.  There  are  numerous  decades,  or  longer  periods, 
during  the  history  of  Israel,  which  are  practically  a 
blank  as  far  as  the  outside  world  is  concerned,  the  most 
that  is  known  concerning  foreign  nations  being  the 
occasional  mention  of  the  name  of  a  king.  The 
contemporaneous,  or  synchronous,  history  of  these 
kings  is  consequently  frequently  impossible  to  establish ; 
and  even  their  order  and  the  length  of  their  reigns,  we 
are  often  unable  to  determine. 

For  example,  in  the  history  of  Egypt  from  about  1200 
B.  C.  during  the  reign  of  the  ten  kings  from  Rameses 
III  to  Rameses  XII  inclusive,  the  succession  "has 
long  been    doubtful    and  is    not  yet    certain'*;  and 

'7i.,  177.       "  Id.,  211-213.        3  Id.,  215-229.         *  KB  iii,  ii,  140. 

s  Nabiinaid-Cyrus  Chronicle,  Col.  ii,  3. 

^  *.  e.f  Phenicia-Palestioe.     Cyrus  Cylinder,  29,  30. 


14  The  Book  of  Daniel 

even  after  the  time  of  the  Ramessids  but  little  is  known 
of  the  history  of  Egypt  down  to  the  time  of  the  Persian 
conquest. ' 

Similarly,  to  cite  a  few  instances  from  the  history  of 
Babylon  and  Assyria,  for  the  interval — more  than  half 
a  millennium — between  the  end  of  the  First  or  Ham- 
murabi Dynasty  and  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar  I ;  for 
the  period — about  two  hundred  years — between  Tiglath- 
Fileser  I  and  Ashumasirpal  II  and  for  the  much  shorter 
interval — about  twenty  years — between  the  death  of 
Ashurbanipal  and  the  fall  of  Nineveh  the  historical  in- 
formation is  very  meager.  Even  regarding  the  Neo-baby- 
lonian  period  we  know  comparatively  little.  There  are 
only  a  few  historical  inscriptions  and  the  numerous 
building  inscriptions  and  contract  tablets  do  not  supply 
their  deficiencies  to  any  marked  degree. 

» Petrie,  History  of  Egypt,  iii,  137.  Of  these  kings,  Mr.  Petrie  says  as 
follows:  "Of  Rameses  V,  the  stele  of  Silsileh  is  the  only  serious  monu- 
ment of  the  reign  and  that  contains  nothing  but  beautiful  phrases" 
{id.,  171) ;  of  Rameses  VI, "  There  is  not  a  single  dated  mcnument  of  this 
reign,  and  no  building,  but  only  steles,  statues,  and  small  objects,  to 
preserve  the  name"  {id.,  173);  of  Rameses  VII,  ."No  dates  exist,  the 
works  and  objects  are  all  unimportant"  {id.,  177);  of  Rameses  VIII, 
"The  stele  of  Hora,  an  official  of  Busiris,  is  the  only  monument  of  this 
reign  to  reward  the  search"  {id.,  177);  of  Ramees  IX,  "This  king  is 
only  known  by  a  vase  and  a  scarab"  {id.,  177);  of  Rameses  X,  "with  the 
exception  of  an  inquiry  into  the  thefts  from  the  tomb  of  Amenhotep  I, 
we  know  nothing  of  the  history  of  this  reign"  {id.,  183);  of  Rameses  XI, 
there  is  nothing  but  a  "list  of  documents  about  the  necropolis  rob- 
beries" {id.,  185);  of  Rameses  XII,  "there  is  no  more  to  be  said  about 
this  reign  than  about  the  other  obscure  reigns  before  it"  {id.,  187). 

Again,  of  the  reign  of  Men-kheper,  from  1074  to  1025  b.  c,  he  says, 
"There  are  but  poor  remains  of  this  long  reign"  {id.,  211);  of  the  next 
ruler,  "There  is  nothing  to  show  that  this  prince  reigned"  {id.,  214). 
The  documents  of  Pasebkhanu,  1006-952  b.  c,  give  merely  his  cartouche 
and  call  him  a  son  of  Pinezem  {id.,  219).  There  is  but  one  important 
document  from  the  reign  of  Nesibadadu,  1 102-1076  B.C.  {li.,  220). 
Of  Pasebkhanu  I,  1076-1035  b.  c,  we  know  that  he  refoundel  a  temple 
at  Tanis  and  surrounded  it  with  a  mighty  wall  and  that  he  built  a 


The  Argument  from  Silence  15 

As  to  the  documents  from  Tyre,  Sidon,  Moab,  ancl 
other  sources,  they  are  so  few,  short,  and  fragmentary, 
that  it  would  be  utterly  impossible  to  relate  them  in  any 
way  with  the  general  history  of  the  ancient  world, 
or  to  one  another,  were  it  not  for  the  annals  of 
the  Israelites,  and  of  the  Assyrio-Babylonians.  The 
almost  entire  absence  of  docimients  from.  Persian 
sources  must  also  be  noticed  here.  Strictly  speaking, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle 
and  the  Cyrus  Cylinder,  which  are  both  written  in 
Babylonian  alone,  the  polylingual  Behistun  Inscriptions 
of  Darius  Hystaspis  are  the  only  historical  documents 
from  the  Persians;  and  from  the  Medes  not  one  docu- 
ment has  survived.  Some  historical  information,  it  is 
true,  may  be  gathered  from  miscellaneous  inscriptions 
of  the  Persian  kings,  Darius  Hystaspis,  Xerxes,  and  the 

temple  at  Gizeh  {id.,  221-233);  o^  his  successor,  Neferkara,  1035-103 1 
B.  c,  we  have  nothing  except  the  mention  of  his  name  in  Manetho  (id., 
223);  of  the  next  king,  Amenemapt,  1031-1022  B.C.,  we  know  only 
that  he  continued  to  build  the  temple  at  Gizeh  {id.,  223) ;  of  the  next 
king,  Siamen,  1022-996  b.  c,  we  know  nothing  of  importance,  except 
that  he  built  a  temple  at  Tanis  {id.,  224,  225);  of  the  next,  Hez-haq-ra, 
987-952  B.  c,  scarcely  anything  is  known  {id.,  225).  Of  the  kings  of  the 
twenty-second  dynasty,  "very  little  is  known  about  the  reign  of  Uasar- 
kon  I,  930-894  B.  c.  {id.,  240);  Takerat  I,  901-876  b.  c,  was  formerly 
not  even  recognized  as  king  {id.,  244);  of  Takerat  II,  856-831  B.  c,  no 
historical  facts  are  recorded  {id.,  254);  of  Shishak  IV,  782-742  B.C., 
"nothing  whatever  is  known"  {id.,  259). 

In  the  twenty-third  dynasty,  there  were  two  Pedu-basts  who  reigned 
between  755  and  736  b.  c;  but  "we  can  only  infer  which  is  the  earlier 
of  these"  {id.,  262).  Of  the  other  kings  of  this  dynasty,  scarcely  the 
names  even  are  known  {id.,  263-265). 

Of  the  twenty-fourth  dynasty,  nothing  is  known  of  Kashta,  725- 
715  B.C.,  {id.,  280);  of  Shabataka,  707-693  B.C.,  "not  a  single  fact  of 
history  is  recorded"  (id.,  287);  of  the  remaining  kings  very  little  is 
known,  except  about  Tirhakeh,  701-667  B.C.  {id.,  290-311). 

Of  the  twenty-fifth  dynasty,  from  the  first  reign,  that  of  Tafnekht  II 
about  749-721  B.  c,  we  have  only  two  steles  (id.,  314);  of  Tafnekht  II 
(Uahab-ra),  scarcely  anything  is  known  {id.,  317,  318). 


i6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

three  Artaxerxeses,  and  from  their  coins  and  the  ruins 
of  their  buildings;  but  in  general  it  may  be  said  that 
from  the  time  of  the  Behistun  inscription  {dr.  515 
B.C.)  to  the  destruction  of  the  Persian  empire  by- 
Alexander  of  Macedon  we  are  dependent  for  our  in- 
formation as  to  the  history  of  Persia  upon  external 
sources,  such  as  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  historians,  the 
Babylonian  tablets,  and  the  Aramaic  papyri. 

VIII.  There  are  numerous  cases  in  which  events 
which  are  mentioned  in  the  documents  of  one  country 
are  entirely  wanting  in  those  of  another.  For  exam- 
ple, the  Tel-el-Amarna  letters  give  us  much  informa- 
tion about  the  relations  existing  between  Egypt  on 
the  one  hand  and  Assyria  and  Babylon  on  the  other; 
but  the  scanty  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  documents 
of  that  time  are  devoid  of  any  reference  to  Egypt. 
After  the  time  of  Amenophis  IV,  however,  the 
Egyptians  make  no  explicit  reference  whatever  to 
either  Assyria  or  Babylon.  Ashurbanipal  gives  lengthy 
accounts  of  his  campaigns,  and  of  that  of  his  father, 
against  Egypt,  giving  us  the  names  of  the  kings  and 
governors  of  Egypt;  but  the  Egyptian  records  are  si- 
lent as  to  the  Assyrian  invasions  and  dominations,  unless 
indeed  there  be  an  allusion  to  them  in  the  inscriptions  of 
Mentemhet,  "a  prince  of  the  Theban  principality," 
from  the  time  of  Taharka,  where  he  speaks  of  the  whole 
land  as  having  been  overturned  as  a  divine  chastise- 
ment.' Of  the  Babylonian  invasion  of  Egypt,  the 
Egyptians  have  left  no  record.  In  fact,  outside  the 
Scriptures,  the  only  reference  to  it  is  in  the  fragment 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  found  near  the  Suez  Canal  and 
written  in  Babylonian. 

'Breasted,  Ancient  Records  of  Egypt  ^  vol.  iv,  p.  461;  Petrie,  History 
of  Egypt,  iii,  305. 


The  Argument  from  Silence  17 

IX.  There  are  numerous  cases,  also,  where  certain 
events  of  a  man's  life  are  mentioned  in  one  of  his  docu- 
ments and  entirely  passed  over  in  others,  which  might 
have  been  expected  to  mention  them. 

For  example,  a  recently  published  inscription  of  Sen- 
nacherib, '  contains  an  accoimt  of  two  great  expeditions 
of  the  Assyrians  against  Cilicia  in  the  time  of  Sennach- 
erib, of  which  the  latter  has  said  nothing  in  his  numer- 
ous inscriptions  previously  published.  So  in  the  case  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  his  conquest  of  Egypt  is  mentioned 
only  in  the  fragment  found  in  Egypt;  but  even  the  name 
of  Egypt  is  absent  from  his  other  records.  Again,  in 
the  three  accounts  on  the  Babylonian  monuments 
of  the  war  between  Cyrus  and  Astyages,  the  Cyrus 
Cylinder  says  simply,  "the  land  of  the  Kuti,  the  totality 
of  the  host  of  the  Manda  he  (Merodach)  caused  to 
bow  at  my  [Cyrus']  feet";  the  Chronicle  says  that 
the  latter's  troops  revolted  against  him  and  that 
he  was  taken  and  deHvered  up  to  Cyrus;  the  Ahu- 
Hahha  inscription  says  that  "Cyrus  the  king  of  Anzan, 
his  insignificant  (small)  vassal,  scattered  with  his  few 
troops  the  widespread  armies  of  the  Manda,  and  that 
Astyages  their  king  was  seized  by  Cyrus  and  brought  as 
prisoner  to  his  land."  He  adds,  also,  that  it  was  in  the 
third  year,  prestmiably  of  Nabunaid,  that  the  event 
happened.  In  like  manner,  Nabunaid's  dream  about 
the  destruction  of  the  Umman-Manda  is  mentioned  only 
in  the  Abu-Habba  inscription,  though  others  of  his  dreams 
(for  he  was  a  great  dreamer)  are  mentioned  elsewhere. 

X.  There  are  cases,  also,  where  the  silence  of  an 
author  with  regard  to  the  method  of  his  procedure  in 
drawing  up  a  document  has  misled  us  into  a  Jalse 

»  CT  xxvi,     London,  1909. 


1 8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

interpretation  of  it.  Perhaps  the  best  exemplification 
of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  brilHant  study  of  Sargon 
by  Dr.  A.  T.  Olmstead,'  in  which  the  author  shows 
that  many  misapprehensions  and  misinterpretations 
of  the  campaigns  of  Sargon  have  arisen  from  a  failure 
to  understand  that  some  of  Sargon 's  inscriptions  are 
chronological,  some  geographical,  some  logical,  and 
some  a  mixture  of  two  or  all  of  these. 

XI.  There  are  many  nations  and  persons,  whose 
names  merely  are  known,  but  over  whose  history  the 
pall  of  a  universal  silence  has  fallen,  as  far  as  native 
records  are  concerned.  The  most  notable  examples 
of  this  kind  from  antiquity  are  the  Medes  and  the 
Carthaginians.  With  the  exception  of  a  few  votive 
and  many  almost  identical  mortuary  inscriptions,  the 
sources  of  information  which  we  have  with  regard  to 
the  city  of  Dido  must  be  found  in  the  works  of  her 
enemies.  If  only  we  could  find  the  memoirs  of  Han- 
nibal !  With  regard  to  the  Medes,  we  have  absolutely  no 
original  information,  since  Weissbach  has  very  conclu- 
sively shown  "^  that  the  third  language  of  the  inscriptions 
of  the  Persian  kings  is  not  the  language  of  the  Medes. 
In  view  of  this,  what  an  astounding  statement  is 
that  which  was  made  in  Dean  Farrar's  Daniel,  that 
Daniel  could  not  have  existed,  inasmuch  as  his  name 
does  not  appear  on  the  Median  monuments!  Other 
examples  of  nations  of  antiquity  about  which  we 
know  nothing  from  native  records  are  the  Trojans, 
the  Scythians,  the  Cimmerians,  and  the  Gauls. 

There  are    many    other    nations    known    to  have 

*  In  his  introduction  to  the  work  entitled:  Western  Asia  in  the  Days 
of  Sargon  oj  Assyria;  (New  York,  1908). 

2  In  his  introduction  to  Die  achdmeniden  Inschriften  zweiter  Art.  and 
in  Die  altpersischen  Keilinschriften,  p.  xxxi. 


The  Argument  from  Silence  19 

flourished  about  which  we  know  nothing  from  any 
source,  except  their  names.  For  example,  in  Herodo- 
tus' list  of  the  nations  subject  to  Darius  Hystaspis, ' 
the  Milyens,  the  Hygennians,  the  Pantimathians,  the 
Aparytae,  the  Paricanians,  and  the  Pausicae  are  abso- 
lutely unknown  except  by  name.  Many  other  cases  can 
readily  be  gathered  from  the  great  work  of  Herodotus. 
So,  also,  in  the  inscriptions  of  the  Assyrian  kings, 
numerous  examples  of  nations  conquered  by  them,  are 
found  as  to  which  we  know  nothing  except  the  names. 
In  view  of  the  general  trustworthiness  of  their  informa- 
tion where  it  can  be  tested  by  other  testimony,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Hittites  and  Elamites  and  Israelites 
and  Babylonians  and  Egyptians,  no  one  could  reason- 
ably doubt  that  what  they  say  as  to  their  conquest  of 
these  otherwise  unknown  nations  is  true. 

XII.  Again,  there  are  many  persons  said  to  have 
been  men  oj  eminence  in  their  day,  who  are  merely 
mentioned  by  name  and  title,  or  position,  about  whom 
we  know  absolutely  nothing  further.  In  Herodotus 
there  are  scores  of  such  men,  as  for  example  in  the 
catalogue  of  the  generals  and  admirals  of  Xerxes.  In 
the  inscriptions  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  in  the  contract 
and  historical  documents  of  Assyria  and  Babylon, 
in  the  royal  lists  of  Egypt,  and  in  the  synchronous  and 
eponym  tablets  of  Assyria  and  Babylon,  there  are  the 
names  of  hundreds  more  of  such  men. 

XIII.  There  are  thousands,  perhaps  we  might  better 
say  tens  of  thousands,  of  eminent  men,  whose  names  even 
are  never  mentioned  on  any  document,  but  who  we  know 
must  have  existed.  Take  Egypt,  for  example.  Every 
once  in  a  while  a  new  mummy,  or  monument,  or  papy- 

'  Bk.  Ill,  89-97. 


20  The  Book  of  Daniel 

rus  is  discovered,  which  reveals  to  us  the  name  and 
deeds  of  some  hitherto  unknown  individual,  who  in  his 
day  loomed  up  large  in  the  view  of  his  contemporaries. 
Not  to  mention  others,  we  might  speak  of  Mentemhet 
from  the  reign  of  Taharka,  Ibe  from  the  reign  of  Psam- 
tik  I,  Nesuhor  from  the  reign  of  Apries,  and  Pefnef dineit 
from  the  reign  of  Amasis.  All  of  these  were  distin- 
guished as  priest,  steward,  general,  or  physician;  and  the 
inscriptions  of  these  which  have  come  to  light  enable 
us  to  get  a  comparatively  fair  view  of  their  life  and 
character.  But  during  the  long  period  of  the  Egyptian 
dynasties,  how  many  thousands  of  others  equally  emi- 
nent in  every  walk  of  life  must  have  flourished,  though 
their  very  names  have  passed  into  oblivion ! 

A  frequently  recurring  phrase  on  the  Assyrian  monu- 
ments, after  a  record  of  a  conquest  of  numerous 
countries  and  kings,  is:  "I  set  my  officers  over  them 
as  governors,  or  deputies."  But  the  names  of  these 
high  officials  are  not  given.  It  may  be  truly  said,  that 
one  would  never  exf)ect  to  find  the  name  of  an  Assyrian 
governor  {qipu,  shaknu,  or  bel  pihati)  on  a  royal  inscrip- 
tion. Tiglath-Pileser  I  says  that  he  conquered  sixty 
kings  of  the  Nairi-land;  but  only  one  is  mentioned  by 
name. ' 

Of  all  the  sub-kings,  governors,  deputies,  and  generals 
who  must  have  served  under  the  dominion  of  the 
Chaldean  kings  of  Babylon  from  625  to  538  B.  c,  the 
Babylonian  historical  and  building  inscriptions  mention 
none  by  name  except  Nabunaid  II  and  Belshazzar,  the 
sons  of  Nabunaid  I.  On  the  contract  tablets  from 
that  period,  we  find  the  names  of  only  fourteen  ashari- 
dus,  twenty  qipus,  and  four  bel  pihalis.  No  shaknus 
are  mentioned.     In  the  inscriptions  from  Persian  times 

»  Lotz,  Die  Inschriften  Tiglath-Pileser' s  I.     (Col.  iv,  43 -v,  32.) 


The  Argument  from  Silence  21 

we  find  the  names  of  no  sub-kings,  of  only  two  satraps, 
of  three  pihatis,  of  three  bel  pihatis,  of  twelve  ashari- 
dus,  of  twenty-one  qipus,  and  of  no  shaknus.  In  Hero- 
dotus, whose  history  of  Persia  extends  from  555  b.  c.  to 
480  B.  c,  we  find  the  names  of  three  or  more  sub-kings 
and  of  about  a  dozen  archons  and  hyparchons. '  With 
the  exception  of  a  score  or  so  of  judges,  scarcely  any 
civil  officers  are  mentioned  among  the  thousands  of 
names  collected  by  Tallquist.  *  With  the  exception  of 
those  mentioned  in  the  Behistun  inscriptions,  very 
few  generals  are  named  in  the  Persian  or  Babylonian 
documents;  though  the  frequent  mention  of  them 
in  Herodotus  and  in  other  Greek  historians  would 
teach  us  that  there  must  have  been  hundreds  of  them 
from  625  B.  c.  to  330  B.  c. 

XIV.  Lastly,  it  must  be  remembered,  that,  when  all 
has  been  said,  we  have  discovered  but  a  very  limited 
proportion  of  the  ancient  documents  which  once  existed. 
This  is  true  as  to  both  public  and  private  documents. 
For  example,  of  the  kings  of  Persiaj  we  have  no  public 
documents  of  Cambyses,  Smerdis,  Darius  II,  Xerxes 
II,  Sogdianus,  Arses,  and  Darius  III,  and  only  one 
each  of  Artaxerxes  I  and  III,  two,  possibly,  of  Cyrus, 
and  two  of  Artaxerxes  II,  six  of  Xerxes  I,  and  about  a 
dozen  all  told  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  Of  private  docu- 
ments from  the  time  of  the  Persian  kings  we  have 
few  after  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  II,  and  the  ones  we 
have  are  nearly  all  from  Babylonia.  There  are  at  most 
two  in  Babylonian  from  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  II,  who 
reigned  from  404  to  359  B.  c.^ 

» The  word  satrap  does  not  occur  in  Herodotus,  although  he  twice 
uses  the  term  "satrapy." 

'  Neubabyionisches  Namenbuch. 

»  Tablet  86  of  the  Morgan  collection,  part  I,  is  from  the  fifth  month 


22  The  Book  of  Daniel 

The  places  also  where  the  records  of  Babylon  and 
Persia  have  been  found  are  comparatively  few  in  number 
compared  with  the  numerous  places  where  they  must 
have  existed;  and  in  these  places,  but  a  very  few  of  the 
whole  number  that  once  existed  have  come  down  to  us. 
Thus,  there  were  doubtless  many  banking  firms,  like 
the  Murashu  and  the  Egibi  houses  at  Babylon  and 
many  storehouses  for  contracts;  but  most  of  the  con- 
tracts known  have  come  from  a  few  localities.  Aramaic 
papyri  were  probably  composed  in  a  score  of  other 
Jewish  colonies,  but  unfortunately  only  the  one  great 
find  of  Elephantine  has  thus  far  been  made.  The 
letters  to  Amenophis  III  and  IV  found  at  Tel-el- 
Amarna  were  most  likely  not  the  only  ones  ever  sent 
by  the  vassals  of  the  Egyptian  kings  to  their  sovereign 
lords.  The  reports  to  AsvSyrian  kings  thus  far  discov- 
ered are  doubtless  but  a  small  part  of  those  which 
must  have  been  sent  to  Nineveh  during  the  500  years 
from  Tiglath-Pileser  I  to  Ashurbanipal. 

Conclusion 

• 
In  concluding  these  general  remarks  upon  the  so- 
called  argument  from  silence,  and  having  in  view  our 
almost  absolute  lack  of  first-class  evidence  bearing  upon 
the  historicity  of  the  statements  made  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  general  and  of  Daniel  in  particular,  we 
refuse  to  accept  as  true  the  indiscriminate  charges 
and  multitudinous  specifications  entirely  unsupported 

of  the  41st  year  of  Artaxerxes.  Since  Artaxerxes  I  reigned  less  than  41 
years  and  Artaxerxes  II  about  46  years,  this  tablet  must  be  from  the 
reign  of  the  latter.  Some  of  the  astronomical  tablets  mention  Arta- 
xerxes II  and  one  at  least  Artaxerxes  III.  See  Kugler:  Sternkunde 
und  Sterndienst  in  Babel,  i,  70-82. 


The  Argument  from  Silence  22^ 

by  evidence  which  are  often  made  against  the  truth- 
fulness of  the  Old  Testament  writings.  A  man  is 
presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is  proven  guilty.  A 
book,  or  document,  is  supposed  to  be  true  imtil  it  is 
proven  false.  And  as  to  particular  objections  made 
against  the  historicity  of  a  person  or  event  mentioned 
in  the  book  of  Daniel  on  the  groimd  that  other  authori- 
ties fail  to  notice  them,  would  it  not  be  well  for  us  to 
possess  our  souls  in  patience,  imtil  such  charges  are 
supported  by  some  direct  evidence  bearing  upon  the 
case?  Why  not  give  Daniel  the  benefit  of  the  doubt, 
if  doubt  there  be? 


CHAPTER  II 

WAS  DANIEL  AN  HISTORICAL  CHARACTER? 

There  will  be  discussed  in  this  chapter  the  definite 
claim  of  the  late  Dean  Farrar  that  such  a  man 
as  Daniel  could  not  have  existed  because  his  name 
even  has  not  been  found  as  yet  upon  the  documents 
dating  from  the  sixth  century  B.C.  It  will  be 
shown,  that  it  is  not  certain  that  Daniel,  under 
his  new  Babylonian  name  given  him  by  Ashpenaz, 
the  prince  of  the  eunuchs  of  Nebuchadnezzar,^  is 
not  mentioned  upon  the  records  of  Babylon ;  and,  also, 
that  even  if  it  be  not  mentioned,  this  affords  no  pre- 
sumption against  the  existence  of  Daniel,  inasmuch 
as  the  kinds  of  records  that  have  come  down  to  us 
could  not  have  been  expected  to  mention  his  name.  To 
be  sure,  by  a  lucky  chance,  or  a  special  providence,  his 
name  might  have  been  recorded  in  one  of  the  docu- 
ments thus  far  discovered;  but  these  documents  being 
such  as  they  are,  it  would  be  most  extraordinary  if 
it  had  been  recorded  there.  Moreover,  unless  some 
new  kind  of  document  should  be  discovered,  or  unless 
the  library  containing  the  contract  tablets  of  the  bank, 
or  office,  at  which  Daniel  transacted  business,  should 
be  unearthed,  it  is  hopeless  to  expect  that  his  name  will 
ever  be  found  on  any  document  yet  to  be  discovered. 

» Dan.  I,  7. 

24 


Daniel  Historical?  25 

To  be  sure,  we  might  have  found,  or  may  still  find, 
a  letter  to  him  or  from  him;  but  the  chance  of  ever 
finding  such  a  letter  is  extremely  small.  As  to  the 
decrees,  especially  those  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  chapter 
four  and  of  Darius  in  chapter  six,  which  purport  to  have 
been  written,  and  to  have  been  written  most  probably 
in  different  languages,  we  might  naturally  suppose  that 
one  or  more  of  them  would  be  discovered.  But  when 
we  recall  the  fact  that  these  at  best  would  be  but  a  few 
out  of  thousands  of  the  decrees  of  the  kings  of  Babylon 
and  that  not  one  of  their  decrees  has  thus  far  been 
unearthed,  it  is  scarcely  reasonable,  to  say  the  least, 
to  expect  that  these  particular  decrees  which  are 
mentioned  in  Daniel  should  ever  be  found.  To 
hope  for  the  discovery  of  an  historical  docimient 
recording  Daniel's  name  is  groundless  in  view  of  the 
character  and  paucity  of  those  we  already  possess. 
No  public  records  of  the  kings  would  be  likely  to 
record  the  name  of  a  servant,  and  we  have  no 
evidence  that  any  private  histories  were  ever  writ- 
ten among  the  Babylonians  or  Persians.  Our  only 
reasonable  expectation  would  seem  to  be  that  some 
future  find  may  disclose  to  us  a  literary  work,  like 
the  Achikar  papyrus,  which  may  contain  some  allu- 
sion to  the  events  of  Daniel's  life,  or  even  make 
mention  of  his  name.  But  at  present,  we  can  deal 
only  with  the  records  that  are  known;  and  to 
these  let  us  now  address  ourselves,  citing  first 
the  objection  of  Dean  Farrar  and  then  proceeding 
to  the  assumptions  involved  in  this  objection  and 
to  a  discussion  of  the  evidence  in  favor  of  these 
assumptions,  and  closing  with  a  few  words  sum- 
ming up  the  conclusions  to  be  derived  from  the 
evidence. 


26  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Objection  Stated  . 

"It  is  natural  that  we  should  turn  to  the  monuments 
and  inscriptions  of  the  Babylonian,  Persian,  and 
Median  empires  to  see  if  any  mention  can  be  found  of  so 
prominent  a  ruler.  But  hitherto  neither  his  name  has 
been  discovered,  nor  the  faintest  trace  of  his  existence."  ^ 

Assumptions  Involved 

It  is  assumed  in  this  objection,  (i)  that  the  absence 
of  the  name  of  Daniel  from  the  inscriptions  of  the 
period  in  which  he  is  presumed  to  have  lived  would 
prove  that  he  did  not  exist  at  that  time,  and  (2)  that 
inasmuch  as  we  have  not  found  on  the  monuments 
hitherto  published  "the  faintest  trace  of  his  existence, " 
he  did  not  in  fact  .exist. 

Answer  to  Objections 

These  charges  will  have  weight  only  with  those  who 
have  never  investigated  the  subject-matter  and  espe- 
cially the  proper  names  of  the  documents  of  that  period. 
But,  inasmuch  as  this  absence  of  Daniel's  name  from 
all  documents  outside  the  Scriptures  seems  to  have 
impressed  Dean  Farrar  as  a  strong  reason  for  denying 
his  existence,  we  shall  proceed  to  discuss  the  whole 
matter  at  some  length.  Let  it  be  said,  then,  that  this 
argument  is  fallacious  because  of  the  character  of  the 
documents  to  which  Dean  Farrar  has  turned  for  traces 
of  Daniel's  existence.  These  documents  extend  from 
the  time  of  Nabopolassar,  the  father  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar,  down  to   and  including  the  time  of  Darius 

»  See  The  Expositor's  Bible,  The  Book  of  Daniel,  p.  5. 


Daniel  Historical  ?  27 

Hystaspis,  thus  covering  the  whole  period  during 
which  Daniel  is  said  to  have  lived.  They  may  be 
divided  into  (i)  contract  tablets,  (2)  building  inscrip- 
tions, (3)  historical  inscriptions,  and  (4)  miscellaneous 
documents. 

I.  We  place  the  contract  tablets  first,  because  they 
are  the  most  numerous,  because  they  have  the  largest 
number  of  proper  names  of  persons  upon  them,  and 
because  these  names  have  been  almost  all  published  and 
classified  in  a  form  easily  accessible,  by  Prof.  Knut  L. 
Tallquist, '  who  has  collated  3504  tablets,  contain- 
ing about  3000  names  connoting  about  12,000  persons. 
Among  these  we  might  have  found  the  name  of  Daniel. 
But  we  do  not  find  it  there.  When  we  examine  these 
names  a  little  more  closely,  however,  the  surprise  and 
doubts  engendered  by  this  failure  to  find  his  name 
are  dissipated.  The  name  of  Daniel,  it  is  true,  does 
not  appear  on  these  tablets;  but  neither  can  we  be  cer- 
tain that  the  name  of  any  other  Hebrew  is  found  there. 
Certain,  we  say ;  for  it  is  probable  that  we  do  find  several 
Hebrew  names  upon  them,  and  it  is  possible  that  a 
nimiber  of  persons  denoted  by  Babylonian  names  may 
have  been  Hebrews.  Several  initial  difficulties  confront 
us  in  our  endeavor  to  identify  and  establish  the  existence 
of  the  names  of  Jews  on  the  documents  of  this  period. 
The  first  is  that  most  of  the  forms  and  roots  of  He- 
brew names  were  common  to  the  Jews  along  with 
the  Moabites,  Ammonites,  Edomites,  Phenicians,  or 
Arameans,  so  that  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  affirm 
with  confidence,  that  a  given  name,  without  a  clearly 
defining  context,  is  the  name  of  a  Jew.  The  second 
is,  that  the  way  of  writing  the  Hebrew  names  for  God 

» Neubabylonisches  Namenbuch  zu  den  Geschaftsurkunden  aus  der  Zeit 
des  Samassumukin  bis  Xerxes. 


28  The  Book  of  Daniel 

in  the  Babylonian  texts  is  not  clear.  The  third  is, 
that  it  seems  certain  that  many  of  the  Jews  and  people 
of  other  nations  who  came  to  Babylon  to  settle,  or 
were  brought  there  as  slaves,  adopted,  or  were  called 
by,  native  Babylonian  names,  thus  destroying  the  trace 
of  their  race  and  nationality  contained  in  their  origi- 
nal native  names.  The  fourth  is,  that  in  the  case  of 
the  Jews,  and  of  those  who  might  have  had  the  same 
names  as  Jews,  the  gentilic  title  (which  is  found  a  num- 
ber of  times  with  the  names  of  Persians,  Egyptians,  and 
others)  has  never  yet  been  found  upon  the  Babylonian 
tablets.  The  fifth  is  that  a  different  nomenclature  was 
commonly  employed  for  denoting  slaves  from  that 
which  was  used  for  freemen.' 

For  these  reasons,  we  may  be  pardoned  for  being  ex- 
ceedingly sceptical  as  to  the  possibility  of  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  Jewish  personal  names  of  the  Babylonian 
tablets  from  Nabopolassar  to  Darius  Hystaspis  inclu- 
sive; that  is,  during  all  the  period  in  which  Daniel  is 
said  to  have  lived.  A  few  men,  mostly  slaves,  like 
the  frequently  occurring  Bazuzu,  may  have  been  Jews; 
but  they  may  just  as  well  have  been  Arabs  or  Ara- 
means.  * 

'  The  freeman  is  X,  the  son  of  Y,  the  son  of  Z;  the  slave  is  merely  X, 
— his  parentage  is  never  given.  The  reason  for  this  being  that  the  slave 
had  no  legal  standing.  He  was  the  son  of  nobody  and  his  children,  in 
like  manner,  were  the  children  of  a  nobody,  since  he  could  not  be  the 
founder  of  a  family  (mar  banu) 

'  E.  g.,  Aqabi-ili  (Nk.  393-4).  Bariki-ili  (Nk.  346:5, 408: 2),  Samaki-ili 
(Nk.  138: 12),  Adi-ili  (Nk.  70:  i,  7),  Yadi-ili  (Nk.  70: 13),  Idda  son  of 
Iddia  a  slave  (Nk.  31: 11),  Aqabuya  (Nd.,  542:2),  Hashda  son  of  Ibna 
(Nd.  997: 3),  Samaku  Cyr.  379: 5,  may  just  as  well  have  been  Arameans 
as  Hebrews.  Addu-natannu  (Nd.  201:  9)  is  a  good  Aramaic  word. 
Shalti-ili  is  called  an  Arab  slave  (Nbp.  19:20).  Padi  might  be  Hebrew, 
but  may,  also,  be  Phenician.  It  was  the  name  of  a  king  of  Ekron  in 
Sennacherib's  time  and  is  foimd  a  number  of  times  in  the  Assyrian 


Daniel  Historical?  29 

The  fact,  then,  that  the  name  Daniel  has  not  been 
found  on  the  Babjdonian  tablets  of  the  sixth  century 
B.  c.  does  not  prove  that  he  did  not  live  at  Babylon  at 
that  time,  any  more  than  the  fact  that  the  names  of 
other  Jews  are  not  found  there  proves  that  there  were 
no  Jews  at  Babylon.  And  yet  this  is  the  very  time 
of  the  captivity !  Surely,  no  one  is  going  to  den}'-  that 
the  Jews  were  taken  to  Babylon  at  all ! 

But  even  if  the  name  were  found,  this  would  not 
prove  that  the  man  so  named  was  a  Jew.  For  the  name 
Daniel  has  been  discovered  on  both  the  Nabatean  and 
Palmyrene  documents  as  a  name  in  use  among  these 
peoples.'  Besides,  the  Babylonian  name  Dannuilu, 
which  occurs  on  a  tablet  from  the  eighth  year  of 
Darius  Hystaspis,  as  the  father  of  a  witness  called 
Zeri,  may  be  the  same  name  as  the  Hebrew  name 
Daniel.  ^ 

But  in  order  to  prove  that  a  Daniel  mentioned  on  a 
tablet  was  the  Daniel  of  our  book,  the  official  position  of 
the  man  would  have  to  be  given  in  a  way  which  is  not 
common  on  the  tablets.  The  mere  name  would  not  be 
enough.  We  would  require  a  description  of  the  person 
named.  But  such  descriptions  are  not  ordinarily  given 
in  the  Babylonian  docimients  except  in  a  very  general 
way.  As  stated  above,  the  name  of  the  father  may  be 
mentioned,  and  sometimes    that  of  the  grandfather. 

records  of  the  seventh  century  b.  c.  Qohns,  Assyrian  Deeds,  etc.,  iii, 
238).  Basia  (Nk.  31  :i3),  and  Busasa  (Cyr.  135: 9),  have  a  good  Syriac 
root  and  good  Syriac  forms,  whereas  the  root  is  wanting  in  Hebrew. 
Dadia  may  be  Phenician  and  is  found  in  Assyrian  as  early  as  the  seventh 
century  b.  c.  (Johns,  Ass.  Deeds,  iii,  526.)  Barikiya  the  son  of  Akka 
(Cyr.  59 : 8)  looks  like  a  good  Hebrew  name. 

*  See  de  Vogu6,  Syrie  Centrale,  p.  62;  Lidzbarski,  Nordsemitische 
Inschriflen,  p.  256. 

"  Strass.  Inschriften  von  Darius,  236,  10. 


30  The  Book  of  Daniel 

But  as  we  know  nothing  of  either  the  father  or  of  the 
family  of  Daniel  the  prophet,  such  a  description  on  an 
inscription  would  not  help  to  identify  him.  His  calling, 
indeed,  might  have  been  given.  For,  frequently  a 
man  is  called  a  shangu  (priest),  or  a  shangu  of  a  certain 
god,  or  a  smith  or  a  secretary,  or  a  measurer  of  corn,  etc. 
But  these  descriptions  are  comparatively  uncommon, 
and  are  especially  unusual  in  describing  the  higher 
officials  of  the  state.  ^ 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  name  of  Daniel  is  said  to 
have  been  changed  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  it  may  well 
be  asked,  whether  his  new  Babylonian  name  does  not 
occur  in  the  documents  of  this  time.  But,  here  also, 
we  have  a  great  initial  difficult}^  to  overcome,  in  the  fact 
that  the  authorities  are  not  agreed  as  to  what  is  the 
Babylonian  equivalent  of  Belteshazzar.  The  Greek 
version  and  Josephus  confounded  the  name  with 
Belshazzar,  giving  Baltassar  for  both.  Schrader  took  the 
name  to  be  compounded  of  Balatsu-usur  (protect  his 
life) ,  the  name  of  the  god  being  omitted.  Sayce  takes 
it  to  be  for  Belit-sharru-usur  (Oh  Bilat,  protect  the 
king),  claiming  that,  as  it  is  written  in  Daniel,  it  is 
a  * '  compound  which  has  no  sense  and  would  be  impos- 
sible in  the  Babylonian  language."^  I  would  suggest 
as  a  third  view,  that  we  read  Bel-lit-shar-usur,  *'Bel, 
protect  the  hostage  of  the  king."     The  evidence^  of 

^  We  meet,  however,  such  descriptions  as  "major-domo  (rab  bid)  of 
Belshazzar"  (Nd.  270:3),  "overseer  of  the  sons  of  the  king"  (Nd.  245:3), 
and  qipu,  "mayor"  or  "officer"  (Nd.  33:5  et  passim). 

'  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  p.  532. 

3 1  take  this  to  be  Bel-lit-shar-u?ur  "Bel  protect  the  hostage  of  the 
king. "  For  the  omission  of  the  r  and  the  writing  of  the  last  two  parts 
of  the  name  "  shazzar, "  compare  the  name  Belshazzar  (see  Schrader 
KAT  433).  It  will  be  seen,  that  the  last  two  syllables  in  the  names  Bel- 
shazzar and  Belteshazzar  are  written  in  the  same  way  in  Babylonian 


Daniel  Historical?  31 

the  manner  of  transliterating  Babylonian  names  in 
Aramaic  is  conclusive  in  showing  that  Bel-lit-shar-usur 
would  be  written  with  but  one  /,  as  we  find  it  in  the 
book  of  Daniel.  This  interpretation  of  the  name 
avoids  the  necessity  of  supposing  that  in  Aramaic  teth 
has  been  substituted  for  tau,  as  the  meaning  sug- 
gested by  Prof.  Sayce  demands ; — a  change,  moreover, 
which  is  not  supported  by  the  transHterations  of  the 
Aramaic  names  of  the  bi-lingual  inscriptions  nor  by  the 
pap3ni.  We  admit,  that  an  exception  might  have 
occurred  here;  but,  in  view  of  the  common  usage, 
the  burden  of  proof  rests  with  the  asserter  of  the 
change. ' 

The  view  suggested  by  me  harmonizes  with  the  state- 
ment of  the  author  of  Daniel  that  Nebuchadnezzar  called 
him  after  the  name  of  his  god;  and  also  with  the 
statements  of  the  first  chapter  of  Daniel,  which 
plainly  imply  that  *' certain  of  the  children  of  Israel, 

and  in  Aramaic  and  Hebrew.  As  to  the  writing  "Belit"  for  "Bellit" 
numerous  parallels  may  be  found  on  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  with 
Aramaic  dockets,  or  indorsements.  Thus  Ashurraham  is  written  in 
Aramaic  with  only  one  r  (CIS  ii,  43) ;  Bana-neshaya,  with  only  one  n 
(Clay,  Aramaic  Endorsements,  40);  Sulummadu,  with  only  one  m  {Cun. 
Texts  of  tJie  U.  of  P.,  viii,  Part  I,  p.  15):  Pani-Nabu-temu,  with  only  one 
n  (CIS  ii,  62);  Sar-rapid,  with  only  one  r  (CIS  ii,  81);  Mar-shaggil- 
lumar,  with  only  one  g  and  one  /  {id.,  61);  Bit-el-edil-ilani,  with  only 
one  il  {id.,  54);  Ishtar-dur-kali,  with  dr  written  once  but  to  be  read  ap- 
parently tar-dur  {id.,  23) ;  Nabu-takkil-ilani,  with  only  one  il  {id.,  58). 
So  in  Syriac  kaukab-Bel  is  written  with  one  b.     Spiciligium  Syriacum^ 

15- 

^  For  example,  the  Babylonian  Beltu  is  always  rendered  in  Syrian  by 
Blty  {Spiciligium  Syriacum,is,  14,  15.9,  et  al.),  the  /  of  Ahe-utir  (Clay, 
Aram.  Indorsements,  2),  and  Pihat-ah-iddina  {id.,  80),  has  been  cor- 
rectly transliterated  in  the  Aramaic  indorsements  by  the  letter  Tau; 
whereas,  in  Bel-etir  (Clay,  Aram.  Ind.,  30,  34,  41,  36  [?]),  Shi^a  {id.,  4), 
Shamash-uballit  (BE,  viii,  ii,  68),  and  Pani-Nabu-temu  (CIS  ii,  62)  the 
t  is  in  all  cases  accurately  transliterated  in  Aramaic  with  a  Teth. 


32  The  Book  of  Daniel 

even  the  seed  royal,  and  of  the  nobles"  were  taken 
to  Babylon  as  hostages  for  the  good  behavior  of 
the  king  and  people  of  Judah.  The  taking  of  hostages 
in  this  manner  had  been  a  custom  of  the  kings  of 
Assyria  and  Babylonia.' 

No  valid  objection  can  be  raised  against  this  inter- 
pretation of  the  meaning  and  of  the  method  of  writing 
this  new  name  which  was  given  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
to  Daniel.     The  interpretation  here  suggested  fits  in  ex- 

*  Thus  Sargon  took  the  son  of  Daiakku  the  deputy  (Shaknu)  of  Man 
as  a  hostage  {litu).  Later,  he  took  one  out  of  every  three  (?)  of  the 
chiefs  (nasikati)  of  Gambuli  as  a  hostage;  and  later  still,  he  took  host- 
ages from  the  chiefs  of  Zami,  Aburi,  Nahani,  and  Ibuli  et  al.^  These 
hostages,  if  youths,  were  brought  up  in  the  king's  palace  and  were  some- 
times made  kings  of  the  subject  nations.  Thus  Sennacherib  set  up  as 
king  of  Shumer  and  Accad  "Belibni  a  Chaldean  of  Babylonian  origin 
who  like  a  little  dog  had  grown  up  in  his  palace."*  Jahimilki,  son  of 
Baal,  king  of  Tyre,  was  brought  as  a  servant  to  AshurbanipaU  and 
afterwards  was  graciously  given  back  to  his  father.  ■♦  The  sons  of  Jak- 
inlu,  king  of  Arwad,  were  brought  to  the  same  king  of  Assyria;  one  of 
them,  Azibaal  by  name,  was  sent  back  to  be  king  in  his  father's  place, 
while  the  rest,  nine  in  number,  were  clothed  in  rich  garments,  gifted 
with  golden  rings  for  their  fingers,  and  caused  to  sit  before  the  king.* 
The  kings  of  Egypt  were  brought  alive  to  Ashurbanipal;  he  showed 
grace  to  Necho,  clothed  him  in  royal  apparel  and  a  golden  band,  as 
became  a  king,  put  on  his  fingers  golden  rings,  and  girded  him  with  an 
iron  sword,  adorned  with  gold,  and  with  the  name  of  Ashurbanipal 
upon  it;  gave  him  chariots  and  horses  and  made  him  king  in  Sais,  at  the 
same  time  that  he  set  up  Necho's  son  Nabu-shezi-banni  as  ruler  over 
Athribis.<^ 

It  is  probable  that  the  kings  of  Babylon  followed  the  example  of  the 
Assyrian  kings.  Thus,  the  members  of  the  royal  family  of  Judah  were 
carried  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  Babylon  and  brought  up  in  the  royal 
palace.  The  names  of  some  of  these,  at  least,  were  changed,  as  had 
been  that  of  the  son  of  Necho,  king  of  Egypt,  by  Ashurbanipal.  Daniel 
we  are  told,  received  the  name  of  Belteshazzar. 

»  Annals  of  Sargon,  76,  262-270. 

"  Bellini  Cylinder  A,  13;  KB  ii,  115. 

3  KB  ii,  169.  -»/(?.,  171.  sjd.,  173.  6  Id.,  167. 


Daniel  Historical?  33 

actly  with  the  position  of  Daniel  and  with  his  relation  to 
the  king  of  Babylon  as  a  hostage  for  the  king  of  Judah 
at  the  time  when  it  was  given. 

Having  thus  determined  the  meaning  and  writing  of 
the  name,  let  us  proceed  to  the  main  question,  as  to 
whether  such  a  name  has  been  found  on  the  records  of 
that  period.  But,  here,  at  the  very  outset,  we  must 
inquire  what  name  we  should  expect  to  look  for  in 
the  inscriptions.  One  would  naturally  suppose  that  we 
should  look  only  for  the  name  Bel-lit-shar-usur;  and 
that,  if  we  did  not  find  this  name  written  in  full,  we 
should  conclude,  that  the  Babylonian  designation  of 
Daniel  did  not  occur  in  these  documents.  But  no! 
This  is  not  the  case.  For,  Dr.  Tallquist  has  very  clearly 
shown  that  in  ordinary  usage  the  native  Babylonians 
were  in  the  habit  of  abbreviating  their  very  lengthy 
names.  He  shows,  first,  that  the  first  term  in  a  name 
of  four  words  may  be  omitted,  as  Ina-eshi-etir  for 
Nergal-ina-eshi-etir;  secondly,  that  the  two  first  may  be 
omitted,  as  Bel-atkal  for  Ana-amat-Bel-atkal;  thirdly, 
that  the  second  may  be  omitted,  as  Minu-Bel-daianu 
for  Minu-ana-Bel-daianu;  fourthly,  that  the  second 
and  third  may  be  omitted,  as  Shamash-etir  for 
Shamash'ina-eshi-etir,  The  first  of  these  methods  of 
abbreviation  would  allow  us  to  read  for  Bel-lit-shar- 
usuff  Lita-shar-usur;  the  second,  Shar-usur;  the  third, 
Bel'Shar-usur;  and  the  fourth,  Bel-usur,  The  first  of 
these  has  not  been  found.  The  second  is  found  possibly 
in  an  uncertain  reading  of  document  168  of  John's 
Assyrian  Deeds  and  Documents,  the  same  name  as  the 
Sharezer  of  2  Kings  xix,  37,  one  of  the  sons  of  Sennach- 
erib by  whom  the  king  was  assassinated. '    The  fourth 

'  In  Abydenus  the  successor  of  Sennacherib  is  called  Nergilus.   Putting 

3 


34  The  Book  of  Daniel 

is  rare,  but  is  paralleled  by  Nabu-usur,  which  occurs  as 
the  name  of  nearly  one  hundred  persons  mentioned  on 
Tallquist's  tablets.'  The  third,  Bel-shar-usur,  coin- 
cides exactly  with  the  name  Belshazzar,  the  son  of 
king  Nabunaid,  and  is  the  only  one  of  the  four  that  is 
found  on  the  tablets  from  which  Dr.  Tallquist  has 
collected  his  chief  list  of  names.  Of  all  the  Belshazzars 
mentioned  in  these  lists,  two  or  three  only  might  possi- 
bly refer  to  Daniel.  One  of  these  is  found  on  a  tablet 
from  the  fourth  year  of  Cyrus.  *  Here  it  is  said  that  some 
minas  of  silver  were  to  be  delivered  into  the  hands 
of  Belshazzar  the  prince,  or  first  officer,  asharidu,  of 
the  king.  On  another  tablet  from  the  eighth  year  of 
the  same  king^  there  is  mention  of  "Belshazzar,  the 
man  who  was  over  the  house  of  the  king."  In  the 
second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  another  tablet  men- 
tions a  governor,^  called  Belshazzar.  If  we  suppose 
that  Daniel  was  the  Belshazzar,  the  prince  of  the 
king,  who  is  mentioned  in  the  fourth  year  of  Cyrus 
(535  B.  c),  he  would,  when  thus  mentioned,  have  been 
only  85  years  of  age,  if  we  suppose  that  his  age  when  he 
was  carried  as  hostage  to  Babylon  was  fifteen,  or  there- 
about. Judging  from  the  longevity  of  officials  in  the 
Orient  to-day,  he  may  have  been  the  major  domo  of 
the  eighth  year  of  Cyrus,  or  even  the  governor  of  the 


the  two  names  together  we  would  have  Nergalsharezer,  the  first  part 
of  the  name  being  preserved  by  Abydenus  and  the  second  part  by  the 
writer  of  Kings.' 

'  Neubabylonisches  Namenbuchf  p.  151. 

«  Strass.  Cyr.  178,  line  3. 

3  Id.,  312,  line  5. 

*  Amel  pihati,  Strassmaier,  Darius  42,  3. 


'  KAT  330,  and  Eusebius,  Chron.,  ed.  Schoene,  i,  35. 


Daniel  Historical?  35 

second  year  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  In  the  latter  case,  he 
would  have  been  active  at  about  loo  years  of  age. 
This  is  not  so  incredible  as  some  would  have  us  believe. 
In  the  preface  to  his  great  Arabic-English  Lexicon, 
Edward  William  Lane  mentions  a  number  of  native 
Arabic  lexicographers  from  whom  he  derived  the 
.material  for  his  dictionary.  One  of  these,  named 
Abu-Zeyd,  lived  to  be  93 ;  another,  El-Asmafie,  to  be  92 
or  93;  another,  Abu-Obajdih,  to  be  about  98;  and  an- 
other, Abu-Amr  Esh-Aheybanu,  to  be  at  least  1 10.  Mr. 
James  Creelman, '  describing  a  visit  to  Jerusalem  and 
other  places  in  the  Turkish  empire,  says  that  several  of 
the  heads  of  the  great  religious  communities  of  that 
empire  had  then  reached  the  age  of  nearly  a  hundred 
years,  but  that  they  were  still  enjoying  the  exercise  of 
their  high  duties  in  apparently  undiminished  vigor  of 
intellect  and  in  certainly  undisputed  authority.  * 

Further,  a  presupposition  in  favor  of  believing  that 
the  Babylonians  wrote  the  Babylonian  name  of  Daniel 
in  the  same  way  that  they  wrote  the  name  of  Belshazzar, 
the  son  of  the  king,  is  to  be  derived  from  the  fact 
that  the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint  version  and  of  Jose- . 

^ Pearson* s  Magazine,  Sept.-Nov.,i909. 

'  The  author  of  this  chapter  is  especially  sceptical  upon  this  argu- 
ment based  upon  the  impossibility  of  Daniel's  having  come  to  Babylon  in 
the  year  of  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  yet  having 
been  alive  and  flourishing  in  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  For  the 
sake  of  the  bearing  upon  the  case  in  discussion,  he  may  be  pardoned  for 
saying  that  his  great-grandmother  Graham,  nee  McCreery,  died  at  the 
age  of  99;  a  great  grand-imcle,  Thomas  Dick,  at  the  age  of  loi,  two  great- 
imcles,  John  Dick,  and  Robert  at  92  and  94  respectively;  and  his  great- 
grandfather, Joseph  Wilson,  at  105.  This  last  mentioned  the  writer 
himself  has  seen,  when  he  was  more  than  100  years  old.  He  was  active 
in  brain  and  body  till  the  last,  was  never  ill  in  his  life,  and  simply 
went  to  sleep  at  last  one  night  and  never  waked.  A  simple  life,  lived 
in  the  fear  of  God,  is  conducive  to  longevity;  and  so  may  it  have  been 
with  Daniel, 


36  The  Book  of  Daniel 

phus  transliterated  both  the  names  in  the  same  way  in 
Greek;  that  is,  by  Baltasar.' 

As  we  have  shown,  then,  that  a  Belshazzar,  who  may 
have  been  the  Daniel  of  our  book,  was  an  "asharidu  of 
the  king*'  in  the  fourth  year  of  Cyrus,  it  may  be  well 
to  ask,  before  we  leave  this  inquiry,  what  is  the  mean- 
ing and  use  of  the  term  asharidu,  Delitzsch^"  defines  it 
as  **the  first,  the  noblest,  the  first  in  rank";^  and 
Muss-Arnolt, ^  as  "supreme,  leader,  prince,  first  in 
place."  It  is  used  as  an  epithet  of  many  gods. 
Thus,  we  find  "Sin  the  first  son  (ashartdu)  of  Bel," 
Shamash,  Ninib,  and  Marduk  are  each  called  the 
asharidu  of  the  gods.  Nergal  is  called  the  asharidu. 
It  is  used,  especially  of  the  first-born  son  of  the 
king,  as  "Nebuchadnezzar,  the  son  {asharidu)  of  Nabo- 
polassar,"  "  Antiochus,  the  son  (asharidu)  of  Seleucus." 
Kings,  also,  used  the  title  of  themselves;  thus  Ashur- 
nasir-abal  says,  "  I  am  the  asharidu  " ;  Sennacherib  says 
that  he  is  the  ''asharidu  of  all  kings."  It  is  used, 
finally,  of  the  nobles  of  the  land.  In  the  tablets,  which 
Tallquist  has  used,  it  is  employed  for  a  small  number 
of  persons  only,  so  that  Daniel  may  well  have 
borne  the  title  in  his  position  as  third  ruler  in  the 
kingdom.  ^ 

'  This  Baltasar  is  a  correct  transliteration  of  Belshazzar  into  Greek 
through  the  ordinary  Aramaic  of  northern  pre-Christian  Syria.  Com- 
pare, for  example,  Iltehiri  for  Ilshahri,  and  Iltammesh  for  Ilshamesh. 
(BE  X,  pp.  xiii,  xiv.) 

'  Assyr.  Handworierbuch.  ^^ 

3  Der  erste,  der  vornehmsie,  der  an  Rang  hochstehende.     See  HWB  in  loc. 

*  Dictionary  of  the  Assyrian  Language. 

s  The  following  are  the  names  and  dates  of  the  asharidus  mentioned  by 
Tallquist,  the  tablets  being  numbered  after  Strassmaier. 

From  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
Nabu-ushezib  Nk.  22:9;  Ubar  Nk.  175:13; 

Mar-Bel-atkal  Nk.  40:2;  Nazia  Nk.  365:12,  369:6; 

Shamash-kin-ahu-Nk.  131:23; ,         ;  Nabu-shar-usur  Nk.  394:3. 


Daniel  Historical?  37 

2.  Having  examined  the  contract  tablets  we  now 
turn  to  the  so-called  building  inscriptions.  Might  we 
not  expect  to  find  the  name  of  Daniel,  or  Belteshazzar, 
upon  these  ?  Let  us  look  at  them  and  see.  All  of  the 
building  inscriptions  of  the  Chaldean  kings  have  been 
translated  by  Dr.  Stephen  Langdon. '  In  his  inscrip- 
tions, Nabopolassar  mentions  beside  himself,  no  one 
but  Nebuchadnezzar,  his  first  bom  son,  and  Nabu- 
shimi-lishir,  the  latter's  twin  brother,  and  these  but 
once  each.^  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  his  27  inscriptions, 
gives  us  the  names  of  none  of  his  contemporaries,  the 
only  names  save  his  own  which  occur  being  those  of  his 
father  Nabopolassar  and  his  remote  ancestor  Naramsin, 
the  latter  mentioned  only  once.^  He  speaks  of  kings 
and  governors  (pihati)  once,  and  once  of  the  princes 
(sagganake)  of  the  land  of  the  Hittites,  *  and  once  of 
*'the  kings  of  the  remote  regions  which  are  by  the  Upper 


From  the  reign  of  Nergal-shar-usur  (Neriglissar) : 
Nabu-sabit-kati    Ng.  7:8,  58:6. 

From  the  reign  of  Nabimaid: 
Bd-ahe-iddin  Nd.  260:  3,  282a  (?), 

517:3  (?)  (-Ngl.  44:2;)  Itti-sharri-balatu  Nd.  573:10; 

Innia  Nd.  261 .3  (?)  Liburu  Nd.  578:10; 

Ardi-ta-?  aala  Nd.  282:23;  Addu  Nd.  782:5. 

From  the  reign  of  Cyrus: 
Bel-shar-usur  Cyr.  188:3;  Sikkabul  Cyr.  243; 

RihitumCyr.  204:6;  Sin-bel-usur  Cyr.  2704. 

From  the  reign  of  Cambyses: 
Ardi-ahe-shu  Cam.  79-4;  Nabu-miti-uballit  Cam.  368:10; 

Terik-shamitsu  Cam.  93:7;  Nabu-bullitanni   Cam.    (407:14, 

Nabu-dini-bullit  Cam.  368:3;  408:12). 

From  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis: 
Iddiranu  Dar.  366:17. 

^  Building  Inscriptions  of  the  Neo-Bdbylonian  Empire. 

'  Inscription  i,  Col.  ii,  70,  and  iii,  5. 

3  Id.,  ii,  26.  *  Id.,  xvii,  Col.  iii,  10. 


38  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Sea  and  the  kings  of  the  remote  regions  which  are  by 
the  Lower  Sea."'  Neriglissar  in  his  two  inscriptions 
mentions  no  one  but  himself  and  his  father  Bel- 
shum-ishkun,  the  latter  but  twice.  ^  Nabunaid,  in  the 
seven  inscriptions,  with  their  parallels,  given  in  Lang- 
don's  work  mentions  none  but  names  of  kings.  ^ 

In  fact,  the  only  names  coming  within  the  period  we 
are  discussing  are  names  of  men  of  royal  blood  such  as 
Nebuchadnezzar,  his  twin  brother,  Shamash-shum-ukin, 
and  their  father  Nabopolassar;  Nabunaid,  his  father 
Nabu-balatsu-ikbi  and  Nabunaid's  son  Belshazzar; 
and  Cyrus  and  his  opponent  Astyages. 

The  Persian  building  inscriptions  of  Darius  Hys- 
taspis  bear  no  names  of  persons  except  those  of  Darius 
and  his  father  Hystaspis  the  Achasmenid.  ^ 

*  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  xvii,  Col.  ii,  25-29. 
'  Id.,  I,  Col.  i,  14,  and  II,  Col.  i,  11. 

3  To  wit:  In  the  great  inscription  from  Ur,  Nebuchadnezzar  and  his 
father  Nabopolassar  (Col.  i,  50,  ii,  40,  41,  53),  Burnaburiash  (Col.  i,  55, 
57),  Sargon  and  Naram-Sin  his  son  (Col.  ii,  29),  Kurigalzu  (Col.  ii,  32), 
Shagashaltiash  (Col.  iii,  44)  and  Belshazzar  his  first  born  son  (Col.  ii,  26, 
iii,  59).  In  the  parallel  passage,  he  names  also  Hammurabi  (Col.  ii, 
20,  Col.  iii,  2,  28).  In  the  small  inscription  from  Ur,  he  mentions  Ur-Uk 
(Col.  i,  8,  12,  15,  22),  Dungi  his  son  (Col.  i,  10,  13,  17,  22),  and  "Bel- 
shazzar, his  (own)  first  born  son,  the  offspring  of  his  heart"  (Col.  ii,  24- 
26).  In  the  great  Cylinder  from  Abu-Habba,  he  names  his  own  father 
Nabu-balatsu-ikbi  the  wise  prince  {rubu  imgu),  Cyrus,  king  of  Anshan, 
his  (Astyages')  little  servant  (Col.  i,  29),  Astyages  king  of  the  Umman- 
manda  (Col.  i,  32),  Ashurbanipal  and  his  father  Esarhaddon  (Col.  i, 
47,  48),  Shalmanassar  and  his  father  Ashur-nasir-abal  (Col.  ii,  3,  4), 
Nebuchadnezzar  (Col.  ii,  49),  Naram-Sin,  the  son  of  Sargon  (Col.  ii, 
57,  64,  iii,  8),  Shagashaltiburiash  (Col.  iii,  28,  31),  and  Kudur-Bel 
(Col.  iii,  29,  31).  In  the  Cylinder  inscription,  he  mentions  his  own 
father,  Nabu-balatsu-ikbi  (Col.  i,  16),  and  Naram-Sin  (Col.  i,  31). 
Finally,  on  three  sample  bricks,  there  appear  the  names  of  Nabunaid 
and  of  his  father  Nabu-balatsu-ikbi.  It  will  be  observed,  that  all 
the  names  mentioned  are  the  names  of  kings,  and  mostly  of  kings  who 
had  lived  long  before  Nabunaid. 

4  Spiegel,  Die  altpersischen  Keilinschriften,  H,  I,  B,  L,  X. 


Daniel  Historical?  39 

3.  Of  historical  inscriptions  from  this  period, 
we  have  first  the  fragments  of  one  describing  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's expedition  to  Egypt  in  his  37th  year.  On 
this  he  mentions,  beside  himself,  Amasis  king  of 
Egypt,  and  perhaps  Pittacus  the  tyrant  of  Mitylene. ' 

In  the  Cyrus  Cylinder ^  we  find  the  names  of  Nabu- 
naid,  and  those  of  Teispis,  the  great  grandfather  of 
Cyrus,  of  Cyrus  his  grandfather,  of  Cambyses  his 
father  and  of  Cambyses  his  son.  In  the  Nabunaid- 
Cyrus  Chronicle,  we  find  the  names  of  Astyages,  Nabu- 
naid,  Cyrus,  Cambyses  his  son,  Ugbaru  (Gubaru  ?) 
and  Nabu-mah  (?)-rib-ahu. 

On  the  Behistun  inscription  of  Darius  Hystaspis, 
there  are  found  beside  the  frequent  occurrence  of  the 
name  of  Darius,  the  names  of  Cyrus,  Cambyses,  and  the 
two  Smerdises;  the  names  of  Achsemenes,  Teispes, 
Ariaramnes,  Arsames,  and  Hystaspis,  the  ancestors  of 
Darius;  the  names  of  the  associates  of  Darius  in  the 
insurrection  against  Smerdis  the  Magian,  Intaphernes 
the  son  of  Vayaspara,  Otanes  the  son  of  Thukhra, 
Gobryas  the  son  of  Mardonius,  Hy dames  the  son  of 
Bagabigna,  Bagabukhasha  the  son  of  Daduhya,  and 
Ardamanish  the  son  of  Vahauka;  the  names  of  the 
rebels  who  rebelled  against  Darius,  Gomates  (Smerdis), 
Athrina  the  son  of  Upadarma,  Nadintu-Bel  and  Arakhu 
who  called  themselves  by  the  name  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
and  claimed  to  be  sons  of  Nabunaid,  Martiya  son  of 
Cicikhrish  who  said  he  was  Ummanish,  Fravartish  who 
said  he  was  Khshathrita  of  the  family  of  Uvakhshatara 
(Cyaxares),  Citrantakhma  who  claimed  to  be  of  the 

'The  syllable  Amis  wanting  in  Amasis  and  only  hu  remains  to  in- 
dicate Pittacus.  Whether  Mitylene  is  the  correct  rendering  of  Butu- 
yaman  is  questionable.  See  Zehnpfund-Langdon,  Die  neubabylonischcn 
Kdnigsinschrifieitf  p.  206. 


40  The  Book  of  Daniel 

family  of  Uvakhshatara,  Frada,  and  Vahyasdata  who 
claimed  to  be  Bardiya  (Smerdis)  the  son  of  Cyrus; 
the  names  of  certain  generals  who  led  the  forces  of 
Darius  against  the  rebels,  Hydarnes,  Dadarshish  the 
Armenian,  Dadarshish  the  Persian,  Vaumisa,  Takhmas- 
pada,  Hystaspis  (the  father  of  Darius),  Artavardiya, 
Vivana,  and  Vaidafra;  and  in  the  small  inscription  K, 
the  name  of  Skunka,  the  Saka.  On  his  other  historical 
inscriptions,  Darius  mentions  no  one  but  himself  and 
his  father  Hystaspis  the  Achaemenid. 

4.  Taking  up  the  miscellaneous  inscriptions,  we 
shall  look  first  at  the  one  lately  published  by  M. 
Pognon  in  his  Semitic  inscriptions  from  Syria,  etc.^ 
We  find  there  the  names  of  Ashurbanipal  and  Ashur- 
edil-ilani,  kings  of  Assyria;  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  Ne- 
riglissar,  and  Nabunaid,  kings  of  Babylon,  and  of 
Nabunaid  the  son  of  the  last  named,  *'the  offspring 
of  his  heart  and  the  beloved  of  his  mother. ' ' 

From  the  times  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  we  have  the 
Suez  boundary  stones,  several  mortuary  inscriptions 
from  Naksh-i-Rustem,  and  some  coins.  These  mention 
beside  Darius  himself,  the  name  of  Hystaspis  the 
Achaemenid,  his  father,  and  the  name  of  the  bearer  of 
his  bow,  Gobryas,  and  that  of  his  bridle-holder  and 
companion,  Aspagana. 

It  will  be  noticed,  that  in  all  these  last  three  kinds  of 
inscriptions  are  to  be  found  few  names  beside  those 
of  kings,  and  the  fathers  and  sons  of  kings.  Most  of 
the  inscriptions  contain  only  the  name  of  the  royal 
author  and  generally  that  of  his  father.  Sometimes, 
distant  ancestors  or  predecessors  are  named.  Outside 
the  inscriptions  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  v/e  find  altogether 
only  the  name  of  Ugbaru  (Gubaru?)  the  governor  of 

»  Inscriptions  semitiques  de  la  Syrie, 


Daniel  Historical?  41 

Gutium,  possibly  that  of  Pittacus  tyrant  of  Mitylene, 
and  that  of  Nabu-mah  (?)-rib-ahu.'  In  Darius'  in- 
scriptions, also,  it  will  be  noticed  that  aside  from 
ancestors,  kings,  and  pretenders,  and  their  fathers,  or 
ancestors,  he  mentions  none  but  a  few  of  his  generals, 
his  six  fellow-conspirators  and  their  fathers,  his 
bearer  of  the  bow  and  his  bridle-holder.  No  civil  officers 
are  mentioned,  unless  we  put  in  this  category,  Vivana, 
the  satrap  of  Arachosia,  and  Dadarshish,  the  satrap  of 
Bactria,  who  are  named,  also,  among  his  generals  and 
because  they  were  generals. 

Conclusion 

Inasmuch,  then,  as  these  inscriptions  mention  no  one 
filling  any  of  the  positions,  or  performing  any  of  the 
functions,  or  doing  any  of  the  deeds,  which  the  book  of 
Daniel  ascribes  to  its  hero  Belteshazzar ;  how  can  anyone 
expect  to  find  in  them  any  mention  of  Daniel,  in  either 
its  Hebrew  or  its  Babylonian  form?  And  is  it  fair, 
in  view  of  what  the  monuments  of  all  kinds  make  known 
to  us,  to  use  the  fact  that  they  do  not  mention  Daniel 
at  all,  as  an  argument  against  his  existence? 

What  about  the  numerous  governors,  judges,  gen- 
erals, priests,  wise  men,  writers,  sculptors,  architects, 
and  all  kinds  of  famous  men,  who  must  have  lived  dur- 
ing that  long  period?  Who  planned  and  supervised 
the  building  of  the  magnificent  canals,  and  walls,  and 
palaces,  and  temples  of  Babylon?  Who  led  the  armies, 
and  held  in  subjection  and  governed  the  provinces,  and 
adjudged  cases  in  the  high  courts  of  justice,  and  sat  in 
the  king's  council?    Who  were  the  mothers  and  wives 

*  A  person  whose  name  cannot  be  further  defined,  since  the  Nabunaid- 
Cyrus  Chronicle  is  broken  both  before  and  after  the  name. 


42  The  Book  of  Daniel 

and  queenly  daughters  of  the  monarchs,  who  sat  upon 
the  thrones  of  those  mighty  empires?  Had  the  kings 
no  friends,  no  favorites,  no  adulatory  poets  or  histori- 
ans, no  servile  prophets,  no  sycophantic  priests,  no  ob- 
sequious courtiers,  who  were  deemed  worthy  to  have 
their  names  inscribed  upon  these  memorials  of  royal 
pride  and  victory;  that  we  should  expect  to  find  there 
the  name  of  Daniel,  a  Hebrew  captive,  a  citizen  of  an 
annihilated  city,  a  member  of  a  despised  and  conquered 
nation,  a  stranger  living  on  the  bounty  of  the  king,  an 
alien,  a  slave,  whose  very  education  was  the  gift  of  his 
master  and  his  elevation  dependent  on  his  grace? 
Let  him  believe  who  can.  As  for  me,  were  the  docu- 
ments multiplied  tenfold,  I  would  not  expect  to  find  in 
them  any  reference  to  this  humble  subject  of  imperious 
kings. 


CHAPTER  III 

DANIEL  I,  I,   AND  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  SILENCE. 

It  has  been  shown  in  the  first  chapter  that  the  records 
preserved  to  us  from  the  nations  of  antiquity  that  were 
contemporaneous  with  the  Israelites  during  the  whole 
period  in  which  the  Old  Testament  books  were  written 
are  few,  partial,  biased,  and  lacunose.  We  have  shown, 
also,  that  the  Hebrew  documents  themselves  do  not 
present  us  with  a  full  or  continuous  account  of  the 
history  of  the  Israelitish  people.  The  silence,  therefore, 
of  these  documents  with  regard  to  an  event  or  person 
is  no  sufficient  evidence  that  the  person  did  not  live,  or 
that  a  given  event  did  not  occur.  In  the  present  chap- 
ter this  conclusion  will  be  illustrated  by  a  consideration 
of  the  objection  made  to  the  expedition  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar against  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim 
on  the  ground  that  the  records  contemporary  with 
Daniel  do  not  mention  it. 

Objection  Stated 

Concerning  the  statement  of  Dan.  i,  i,  that  Daniel 
"was  brought  to  the  court  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim,"  De  Wette-Schrader  says: 

It  is  clearly  false,  because  according  to  Jer.  xxv,  i,  xlvi, 
2,  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  is  the  first  of  Nebuchad- 

43 


44  The  Book  of  Daniel 

nezzar;  and  according  to  Jer.  xxv,  9,  and  also  according  to 
xxxvi,  9,  the  Chaldeans  had  not  yet  come  to  Jerusalem  in 
the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim.  Besides  the  captivity  under 
Zedekiah,  history  knows  of  no  other  than  that  under  Jeho- 
achin  in  the  eighth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar. '  Chronicles 
alone^  tells  of  a  captivity  of  Jehoiakim.  This  last  place 
the  composer  probably  used  and  got  his  date  from  2  Kings 
xxiv,  i.^ 

Professor  Prince  says : 

It  is  known  from  Jer.  25,  i,  and  36,  9,  29,  that^  Nebu- 
chadnezzar did  not  begin  his  reign  in  Babylon  until  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  in  Judah,  and  that  the  Babylon- 
ians in  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim  had 
not  yet  come  to  Jerusalem,  which  was  taken  in  July,  586 
B.  c.  The  origin  of  the  error  has  been  traced  to  a  false 
combination  of  2  Ch.  36,  6  ff.,  and  2  K.  24,  1/ 

Mr.  A.  R.  Bevan  says : 

The  statement  in  v.  i  that  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged 
Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  seems  to  be  due  to 
a  combination  of  2  K.  24,  i,  2,  with  2  Ch.  36,  6.  In  Kings, 
the  "three  years"  are  not,  of  course,  the  first  three  years  of 
Jehoiakim's  reign,  nor  is  there  any  mention  of  a  siege.  The 
idea  that  Jerusalem  was  captured  under  Jehoiakim  appears 
first  in  Chronicles,  but  no  date  is  given.  The  author  of 
Daniel  follows  the  account  in  Chronicles,  at  the  same  time 
assuming  that  the  "three  years"  in  Kings  date  from  the 
beginning  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  and  that  "the  bands  of  the 
Chaldeans"  were  a  regular  army  commanded  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar.^ 

»  2  Kings,  xxiv,  12  ff.  According  to  Jer.  Hi,  28,  in  the  seventh  yeat 
of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

"2  Chron.  xxxvi,  6  f .  *  Commentary  on  Daniel,  p.  18 

»  Einleitung,  8th  ed.,  p.  486.  s  The  Book  oj  Daniel,  p.  57. 


Jehoiakim's  Third  Year  45 

Dr.  Driver  says: 

That  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged  Jerusalem,  and  carried 
away  some  of  the  sacred  vessels  in  "the  third  year  of  Jehoi- 
akim*'  (Dan.  i,  i  f.),  though  it  cannot,  strictly  speaking,  be 
disproved,  is  highly  improbable;  not  only  is  the  book  of 
Kings  silent,  but  Jeremiah  in  the  following  year  (c.  25,  &c., 
see  V.  i)  speaks  of  the  Chaldeans  in  a  manner  which 
appears  distinctly  to  imply  that  their  arms  had  not  yet  been 
seen  in  Judah. ' 

Assumption  Involved 

The  main  assumption  in  all  of  these  objections  is  that 
the  silence  of  the  book  of  Kings  and  other  sources  with 
regard  to  an  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  against 
Jerusalem  in  Jehoiakim's  third  year  renders  improbable 
the  statement  of  Daniel  that  such  an  expedition  did 
occur. 

Answers  to  the  Assumption 

An  attempt  will  now  be  made  to  show  that  this  silence 
does  not  render  such  an  expedition  improbable.  Hav- 
ing in  the  first  chapter  discussed  this  kind  of  argument 
in  general,  I  shall  confine  myself  in  this  chapter  to  a 
consideration  of  the  argtunent  from  silence  in  so  far 
merely  as  it  affects  the  particular  statements  of  Dan. 
i,  I. 

I.  First  of  all,  let  us  gather  all  the  evidence  that 
contemporary  documents  afford  concerning  the  life 
of  Jehoiakim,  beginning  with  the  Book  of  Kings, 
All  that  this  book  has  to  say  on  this  subject  will  be 
found  in  2  Kings  xxiii,  36,  37,  and  xxiv,  1-7,  which  the 
American  Standard  Version  renders  as  follows: 

»  LOT  p.  498. 


46  The  Book  of  Daniel 

XXIII,  36.  Jehoiakim  was  twenty  and  five  years  old 
when  he  began  to  reign;  and  he  reigned  eleven  years  in 
Jerusalem:  and  his  mother's  name  was  Zebidah  the  daugh- 
ter of  Pedaiah  Rumah.  (37)  And  he  did  that  which  was 
evil  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,  according  to  all  that  his  fathers 
had  done. 

XXIV,  I.  In  his  days  Nebuchadnezzar,  King  of  Baby- 
lon, came  up,  and  Jehoiakim  became  his  servant  three  years; 
then  he  turned  and  rebelled  against  him.  (2)  And  Jeho- 
vah vSent  against  him  bands  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  bands  of 
the  Syrians,  and  bands  of  the  Moabites,  and  bands  of  the 
children  of  Ammon,  and  sent  them  against  Judah  to  destroy 
it,  according  to  the  word  of  Jehovah,  which  he  spake  by  his 
servants  the  prophets.  (3)  Surely  at  the  commandment  of 
Jehovah  came  this  upon  Judah,  to  remove  them  out  of  his 
sight,  for  the  sins  of  Manasseh,  according  to  all  that  he  did, 
(4)  and  also  for  the  innocent  blood  that  he  shed;  for  he 
filled  Jerusalem  with  innocent  blood :  and  Jehovah  would 
not  pardon.  (5)  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoiakim,  and 
all  that  he  did,  are  they  not  written  in  the  book  of  the  chron- 
icles of  the  kings  of  Judah  ?  (6)  So  Jehoiakim  slept  with  his 
fathers ;  and  Jehoiachin  his  son  reigned  in  his  stead.  (7)  And 
the  king  of  Egypt  came  not  again  any  more  out  of  his  land; 
for  the  king  of  Babylon  had  taken,  from  the  brook  of  Egypt 
to  the  [river  Euphrates,  all  that  pertained  to  the  king  of  Egypt- 
It  will  be  noted  that  Jehoiakim  reigned  eleven  years. 

Since,  according  to  Jer.  xxv,  I,  the  first  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  corresponded  to  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  they  must  have  reigned  eight  years  con- 
temporaneously. Yet  all  that  the  book  of  Kings  has  to 
say  in  regard  to  the  relations  between  Babylon,  Egypt, 
and  Jerusalem  during  these  eight  years  is : 

First,  that  in  Jehoiakim's  days  Nebuchadnezzar  the 
king  of  Babylon  came  up  against  Jerusalem,  and  that 
Jehoiakim  served  him  three  years. 


Jehoiakim's  Third  Year  47 

Secondly,  that  then  Jehoiakim  rebelled  again  against 
him. 

Thirdly,  that  the  king  of  Egypt  did  not  come  again 
out  of  his  land,  because  the  king  of  Babylon  had  taken 
all  that  belonged  to  him  from  the  brook  (wady)  of  Egypt 
to  the  river  Euphrates. 

It  will  be  noted,  further,  that  the  book  of  Kings  does 
not  say  in  what  year  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up.  The 
only  notes  of  time  are,  that  he  came  up  in  Jehoiakim's 
days,  and  that  Jehoiakim  served  him  three  years. 
Unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  phrase  "King  of  Baby- 
lon" cannot  be  used  proleptically,  or  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar cannot  have  been  called  king  before  his  father's 
death,'  he  may  have  come  during  Jehoiakim's  reign 
at  any  time  not  earlier  than  the  latter's  third  year. 
If  Jehoiakim's  rebellion  was  in  his  own  eleventh  year, 
this  would  leave  time  for  the  three  years  of  service 
inmiediately  before  he  rebelled,  that  is,  from  the  eighth 
to  the  eleventh  year  of  Jehoiakim's  reign. 

It  will  be  noted,  also,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  may  have 
come  up  against  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  during  the  pe- 
riod between  the  fall  of  Nineveh  and  the  death  of  Jehoi- 
akim, a  number  of  times  every  year,  for  aught  we  know 
to  the  contrary.  Frequent  expeditions  across  the 
Euphrates  were  customary  on  the  part  of  the  kings 
of  the  Assyrians,  who  immediately  preceded  the  Ba- 
bylonians in  the  government  of  Syria  and  Palestine. 
Thus,  Shalmaneser  III  says  that  he  crossed  the  Eu- 
phrates twenty-two  times  in  the  first  twenty-two 
years  of  his  reign.  =*  Is  there  any  reason  for  suppos- 
ing that  what  had  been  done  by  this  king  of  Assyria 

^  For  a  discussion  of  these  questions,  see  Chapter  V. 
»  Obelisk  Inscription  of  Nimrud  27,  33,  37,  45,  57,  85,  87,  89,  91,  96, 
97,  99.  100,  102,  104 


48  The  Book  of  Daniel 

may  not  have  been  done,  also,  by  the  king  of  Babylon? 
What  was  possible  for  one  was  possible,  also,  for  the 
other.  Shalmaneser  speaks  of  crossing  the  Amanus 
mountains  seven  times  and  of  coming  against  the  cities 
of  Kati  of  Kana  (Cilicia)  four  times.  ^  Why  may  Nebu- 
chadnezzar not  have  crossed  Lebanon  and  have  come 
against  Judah  in  like  manner,  and  any  number  of  times 
that  seemed  best  to  him,  for  the  accomplishment  of  his 
aims  of  conquest  ?  It  will  not  be  sufficient  to  say  in  answer 
to  this,  that  these  campaigns  could  not  have  taken  place, 
inasmuch  as  no  mention  of  them  is  made  on  the  monu- 
ments of  Nebuchadnezzar;  because  we  have  no  inscrip- 
tions of  his  that  record  his  campaigns.  We  know  from 
his  building  inscriptions  and  from  the  fragments  of  his 
one  historical  inscription  that  the  lands  to  the  west  of 
the  Euphrates  were  subject  to  him,  and  that  he  invaded 
Egypt  once,  at  least.  We  are  told  in  the  writings  of 
Berosus,  Megasthenes,  and  Abydenus  that  he  ruled 
over  Egypt,  Syria,  Phenicia,  Arabia,  and  Judea,  and 
other  Mediterranean  lands.  We  are  told  in  the  Scrip- 
tures outside  of  Daniel  that  he  was  in  possession  of 
Syria  and  conquered  Judea  and  was  to  be  given  Tyre 
and  Sidon  and  Egypt.  How  many  years  and  how 
many  expeditions  it  took  to  make  these  conquests,  we 
are  not  informed;  but  all  authorities  combine  in  point- 
ing to  the  beginning  of  his  reign  and  the  years  im- 
mediately preceding  this,  as  a  time  of  great  and  almost 
continuous  activity  in  warlike  enterprises.  Conse- 
quently it  is  not  a  sufficient  proof  of  his  having  made 
no  expeditions  against  Judah  before  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  to  say  that  the  Scriptures  outside  of  Daniel 
do  not  mention  such  an  expedition.  This  will  appear 
from  the  following  sections : 
« Id.,  132, 135- 


Jehoiakim*s  Third  Year  49 

II.  For  all  that  Jeremiah,  the  prophet,  has  to  say- 
about  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  is  as  follows.  In  ch. 
XXV,  1-3,  he  says  that  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
to  him : 

In  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah  king  of 
Judah,  that  was  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of 
Babylon.  The  which  Jeremiah  the  prophet  spake  unto  all 
the  people  of  Judah,  and  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
saying,  From  the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiah  the  son  of  Amon 
king  of  Judah,  even  unto  this  day,  that  is  the  three  and 
twentieth  year,  the  word  of  the  Lord  hath  come  unto  me, 
and  I  have  spoken  imto  you,  rising  early  and  speaking;  but 
ye  have  not  hearkened. 

In  XXV,  8,  9,  he  adds: 

Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts ;  Because  ye  have 
not  heard  my  words.  Behold,  I  will  send  and  take  all  the 
families  of  the  north,  saith  the  Lord,  and  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  king  of  Babylon,  my  servant,  and  will  bring  them 
against  this  land,  and  against  the  inhabitants  thereof,  and 
against  all  these  nations  round  about,  and  will  utterly 
destroy  them,  and  make  them  an  astonishment,  and  an 
hissing,  and  perpetual  desolations. 

In  xxvi,  I,  and  xxvii,  i,  it  is  said  that  the  word  of 
the  Lord  came  imto  Jeremiah  in  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Jehoiakim,  probably  meaning  his  first  or 
accession's  year.  In  the  former,  the  prophet  says  that 
if  they  will  not  hearken  unto  Jehovah,  He  will  make 
the  temple  like  Shiloh  and  the  city  a  curse  to  all  the 
nations  of  the  earth ;  in  the  latter,  he  says  that  all  nations 
shall  serve  Nebuchadnezzar.  In  xxxv,  i,  he  tells  of 
a  prophecy  unto  the  house  of  the  Rechabites,  who 
came  to  him  in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim,  and  explained 


50  The  Book  of  Daniel 

their  presence  in  Jerusalem  by  saying  (v.  ii):  **it 
came  to  pass,  when  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Baby- 
lon came  up  into  the  land,  that  we  said,  Come,  and  let  us 
go  to  Jerusalem  for  fear  of  the  army  of  the  Chaldeans, 
and  for  fear  of  the  army  of  the  Syrians ;  so  we  dwell  at 
Jerusalem." 

In  chapters  xxxvi,  xlv,  and  xlvi,  we  have  prophecies 
from  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  and  in  xxxvi,  9,  from 
his  fifth  year.  In  xxxvi,  1-8,  he  speaks  of  a  roll  which 
he  gave  to  Baruch  to  be  read  by  him  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord.  In  xxxvi,  9,  he  says  that  Baruch  read  the  roll, 
apparently  a  second  time,  in  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth 
year;  and  in  the  29th  and  30th  verses,  we  learn  that 
there  were  written  in  the  roll  the  words:  '*The  king  of 
Babylon  shall  certainly  come  and  destroy  this  land  .  .  . 
and  Jehoiakim  shall  have  none  to  sit  upon  the  throne 
of  David ;  and  his  dead  body  shall  be  cast  out  in  the 
day  to  the  heat,  and  in  the  night  to  the  frost. "  After 
the  roll  had  been  burned  by  Jehoiakim,  we  are  told  that 
another  roll  was  written  containing  the  same  words,  and 
also  **  there  were  added  besides  unto  them  many  like 
words'*  (v.  32).  Chapter  xlv  is  a  prophecy  to  and  con- 
cerning Baruch  which  is  said  to  have  been  written  in 
the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. 

In  xlvi,  I,  2,  is  recorded  the  **word  of  the  Lord  which 
came  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet  against  the  Gentiles; 
Against  Egypt,  against  the  army  of  Pharaoh-Necho  king 
of  Egypt,  which  was  by  the  river  Euphrates  in  Carche- 
mish,  which  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  smote  in 
the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. "  In  this  chapter  it  says 
that  the  Egyptians  shall  stumble  and  fall  toward  the 
north  by  ('a/)  the  river  Euphrates  (v.  6) ;  for  the  Lord 
God  of  hosts  hath  a  sacrifice  in  the  north  country  b}^ 
i^el)  the  river  Euphrates  (v.  10) ;  and  that  Egypt  and  all 


Jehoiakim's  Third  Year  51 

her  helpers  shall  be  delivered  into  the  hand  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar (v.  26).^ 

From  these  passages  we  learn: 

1.  That  the  book  of  Jeremiah  does  not  pretend  to 
give  us  a  history  of  the  events  of  the  time  of  Jehoiakim. 
The  prophecies  of  the  26th  and  27th  chapters  are  from 
the  beginning  of  his  reign;  those  of  the  25th,  36th,  45th, 
and  46th  are  from  his  fourth  year,  except  a  part  of  the 
36th,  which  is  from  his  fifth  year;  and  the  prophecy 
concerning  the  Rechabites  in  the  35th  chapter  is  said  to 
be  from  *'the  days  of  Jehoiakim."  Moreover,  we  are 
expressly  told  in  xxxvi,  32,  that  many  words  like  to 
those  which  have  been  preserved  to  us  were  added  unto 
them  by  Baruch.  We  have,  therefore,  in  the  book  as  it 
stands,  only  selections  and  fragments  of  the  records  of 
Jeremiah. 

2.  That  even  of  the  few  records  of  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim  preserved  in  the  passage  above  men- 
tioned, but  a  small  number  refer  directly  to  inter- 
national events.  Thus,  chapter  xxxv  concerns  the  Re- 
chabites and  chapter  xlv,  Baruch  the  scribe  of  Jeremiah; 
chapter  xxxvi  gives  an  account  of  the  roll  that  was  writ- 
ten by  Baruch  and  burned  by  the  king;  chapters  xxv, 
xxvi,  and  xxvii,  are  directed  against  Judah,  and  the  na- 
tions round  about,  and  especially  against  Jerusalem  and 
the  temple,  naming  Nebuchadnezzar  as  God's  servant 
and  instrument  in  the  punishment  of  the  nations  and 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple;  chapter 
xlvi  alone  is  concerned  exclusively  with  foreign  affairs, 
viz.  with  Egypt  and  Babylon. 

3.  That  Jeremiah  mentions  specifically  no  expedi- 
tion of  Nebuchadnezzar  against  Judah  or  Jerusalem 
in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim. 

»  See,  also,  i,  3;  xxii,  18,  19. 


52  The  Book  of  Daniel 

4.  But  he  implies  in  a  number  of  places  that  such 
expeditions  had  been  made.     For, 

(i)  Jehoiakim  had  been  made  king  by  Pharaoli- 
Necho.  When  Necho  was  defeated  and  his  power 
destroyed  at  Carchemish  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoia- 
kim, Jerusalem  would  inevitably  fall  under  the  domi- 
nation of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

(2)  Jeremiah  says  that  the  Rechabites  came  and 
settled  in  Jerusalem  for  fear  of  the  army  of  the  Chal- 
deans, when  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  came  into 
the  land. 

(3)  Jeremiah  says  that  Nebuchadnezzar  should  cer- 
tainly come  and  destroy  the  land  and  that  the  dead 
body  of  Jehoiakim  should  be  cast  out,  apparently  by  the 
Chaldeans. 

5.  The  only  dates  given  are  ''The  days  of  Jehoia- 
kim" (xxxv,  i),  "the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  "  (xxxvi, 
i;  XXV,  i;  xlvi,  2),  and  **the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim" 
(xxxvi,  9) ;  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  is  synchronized 
with  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (xxv,  i) ;  and  it 
is  stated  that  Jeremiah  prophesied  for  23  years  from 
the  13th  year  of  Josiah  to  the  4th  year  of  Jehoiakim. 

III.  The  book  of  Chronicles  says  with  regard  to  the 
reign  of  Jehoiakim : 

The  king  of  Egypt  made  Eliakim  his  brother  king  over 
Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and  turned  his  name  to  Jehoiakim. 
And  Necho  took  Jehoahaz  his  brother,  and  carried  him  to 
Egypt.  Jehoiakim  was  twenty  and  five  years  old  when  he 
began  to  reign,  and  he  reigned  eleven  years  in  Jerusalem;  and 
he  did  that  which  was  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  his  God. 
Against  him  came  up  Nebuchadnezzar  King  of  Babylon, 
and  bound  him  in  fetters,  to  carry  him  to  Babylon.  Nebu- 
chadnezzar also  carried  off  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord  to  Babvlon,  and  put  them  in  his  temple  at  Babylon, 


Jehoiakim's  Third  Year  53 

Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoiakim,  and  his  abominations 
which  he  did,  and  that  which  was  found  in  him,  behold,  they 
are  written  in  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah. 
(2  Chron.  xxxvi,  4-8.) 

It  will  be  noted  that  here  it  is  expressly  stated: 

1.  That  Nebuchadnezzar  did  come  up  to  Jerusalem 
in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim. 

2.  That  he  bound  Jehoiakim  in  chains  to  carry  him 
to  Babylon. 

3.  That  Nebuchadnezzar  at  this  time  carried  some 
of  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  Jehovah  to  Babylon  and 
put  them  in  the  temple  at  Babylon. 

IV.  Neither  Ezekiel,  nor  any  other  Old  Testament 
book  except  Jeremiah,  Kings,  Chronicles,  and  Daniel, 
mentions  Jehoiakim. 

V.  Outside  the  Scriptures,  the  testimony  of  the  mon- 
uments bearing  upon  this  time  is  as  follows : 

1 .  The  monuments  of  Egypt  which  mention  Necho's 
operations  in  Syria  consist  merely  of  the  fragments  of  a 
stele  bearing  his  name  in  hieroglyphic.  This  stele  was 
found  at  Sidon.' 

2.  The  records  of  Nebuchadnezzar  contain  nothing 
bearing  directly  upon  the  subject  of  his  warlike  expedi- 
tions, except  the  fragment  found  in  Egypt  referring  to 
an  Egyptian  campaign  in  his  37th  year.  *  The  contract 
tablets  are  absolutely  silent  upon  the  political  actions 
of  his  reign.  As  to  the  building  inscriptions  we  might 
infer  ^  that  at  the  time  when  these  buildings  were  erected, 

»Breasted*s  History  of  Egypt,  p.  405,  and  PSBA  xvi,  91. 

*  Zehnpfund-Langdon,  Die  Neo-Babylonischen  Koningsinschriften,  p. 
207.     English  original  p.  182. 

»  This  inference  is  to  be  made  from  his  mention  of  the  cedar  beams  with 
which  he  rebuilt  Borsippa  (Langdon,  I,  Col.  ii,  2)  such  as  Ezida  (XI, 
Col.  i,  21,  and  especially  VII,  Col.  i,  25),  and  other  of  his  works  {id.  V, 


54  The  Book  of  Daniel 

he  held  dominion  over  Syria,  including  as  far  as  Mt. 
Lebanon  at  least. 

VI.  Lastly,  I  shall  quote  what  the  profane  histori- 
ans say  about  these  times. 

I.     Josephus,  in  his  Antiquities,  XI,  vi,  1-3,  vSays: 

In  the  fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  one  whose 
name  was  Nebuchadnezzar  took  the  government  over  the 
Babylonians,  who  at  the  same  time  went  up  with  a  great 
army  to  the  city  Carchemish,  which  was  at  Euphrates, 
upon  a  resolution  he  had  taken  to  fight  with  Necho,  king  of 
Egypt,  under  whom  all  Syria  then  was.  And  when  Necho 
understood  the  intention  of  the  king  of  Babylon,  and  that 
this  expedition  was  made  against  him,  he  did  not  despise  his 
attempt,  but  made  haste  with  a  great  band  of  men  to 
Euphrates  to  defend  himself  against  Nebuchadnezzar;  and 
when  they  had  joined  battle,  he  was  beaten,  and  lost  many 
ten  thousands  in  the  battle.  So  the  king  of  Babylon  passed 
over  Euphrates,  and  took  all  Syria,  as  far  as  Pelusium, 
excepting  Judea.  But  when  Nebuchadnezzar  had  already 
reigned  four  years,  which  was  the  eighth  of  Jehoiakim's 
government  over  the  Hebrews,  the  king  of  Babylon  made  an 
expedition  with  mighty  forces  against  the  Jews,  and  required 
tribute  of  Jehoiakim,  and  threatened,  on  his  refusal,  to  make 
war  against  him.  He  was  frightened  at  his  threatening, 
and  bought  his  peace  with  money,  and  brought  the  tribute 
he  v/as  ordered  to  bring  for  three  years.  2.  But  on  the 
third  year,  upon  hearing  that  the  king  of  the  Babylonians 
made  an  expedition  against  the  Egyptians,  he  did  not  pay  his 

Col.  i,  22) ;  his  reference  to  the  temple  roofs(IX,  Col.  ii,  19),  and  his  royal 
palace  for  which  he  brought  "great  cedars  from  Lebanon"  (IX,Col.  iii, 
26) ;  the  great  cedar  beams  of  Emahtila  (XIII,  Col.  i,  41,  42)  of  Ekua  and 
other  temples  and  shrines  {id.XV,.Coh  iii,  27,  41,  51,  Col.  vi,  2,  4,  and 
Col.  viii,  3,  Col.  ix,  3,  10  et  al.,  XVI,  Col.  i,  20),  and  especially  from  XVII, 
Col.  iii,  where  he  speaks  of  summoning  the  princes  of  the  land  of  the 
Hittites  beyond  the  Euphrates  westward  over  whom  he  exercised 
lordship.  (XVII,  Col.  iii,  8-22.) 


Jehoiakim's  Third  Year  55 

tribute.  ...  3.  Now  a  little  time  afterwards,  the  king  of 
Babylon  made  an  expedition  against  Jehoiakim,  whom  he 
received  into  the  city  and  then  out  of  fear  of  the  foregoing 
predictions  of  this  prophet  [i.  e.,  of  Jeremiah],  as  supposing 
that  he  should  suffer  nothing  that  was  terrible,  because  he 
neither  shut  the  gates,  nor  fought  against  him;  yet  when  he 
was  come  into  the  city,  he  did  not  observe  the  covenant  he 
had  made;  but  he  slew  such  as  were  in  the  flower  of  their 
age,  and  such  as  were  of  the  greatest  dignity,  together  with 
their  king  Jehoiakim,  whom  he  commanded  to  be  thrown 
before  the  walls,  without  any  burial;  and  made  his  son 
Jehoiachin  king  of  the  country  and  of  the  city:  he  also 
took  the  principal  persons  in  dignity  for  captives,  three 
thousand  in  number,  and  led  them  away  to  Babylon;  among 
whom  was  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  who  was  then  but  young. 
And  this  was  the  end  of  king  Jehoiakim,  when  he  had  lived 
thirty-six  years,  and  of  them  reigned  eleven. 

Further,  in  his  work  against  Apion,  i,  19,  Josephus 
says  that  Berosus  in  his  History  comes  at  length  to 
*'Nabolassar  [Nabopolassar],  who  was  king  of  Babylon 
and  of  the  Chaldeans,"  and  that  Berosus  in  relating 
the  acts  of  this  king  "describes  to  us  how  he  sent  his  son 
Nabuchodonosor  against  Egypt,  and  against  our  land, 
with  a  great  army,  upon  his  being  informed  that  they 
had  revolted  from  him;  and  how  by  that  means,  he 
subdued  them  all." 

From  these  accoimts  of  Josephus,  we  learn : 
(i)  That  Nebuchadnezzar,  before  he  became  king, 
was  sent  by  his  father  on  an  expedition  against  Egypt 
and  Palestine. 

(2)  That  Nebuchadnezzar  took  the  government  over 
the  Babylonians  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. 

(3)  That  Nebuchadnezzar  defeated  Necho  at  Car- 
chemish. 


56  The  Book  of  Daniel 

(4)  That  Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  Syria  as  far 
as  Pelusium,  excepting  Judea,  immediately  after  the 
battle  of  Carchemish. 

(5)  But  that  he  did  not  make  an  expedition  against 
Jerusalem  till  the  eighth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  which  was 
his  own  fourth  year. 

(6)  That  Jehoiakim  paid  tribute  for  three  years. 

(7)  That  Jerusalem  was  taken  in  the  eleventh  year 
of  Jehoiakim;  at  which  time  Jehoiakim  himself  was 
killed  and  his  body  thrown  before  the  wall  without 
any  burial. 

2.  In  addition  to  the  above,  Berosus  has  the  follow- 
ing to  say  about  Nebuchadnezzar,  to  wit  : 

His  father  having  perceived  that  the  Egyptians  and 
others  had  revolted,  sent  his  son  Nabuchodonosor  with  a 
great  army  against  Egypt  and  against  the  land  of  Judea, 
who  overpowered  them  and  set  fire  to  the  temple  which 
was  in  Jerusalem;  and  having  entirely  removed  all  the 
people  who  were  in  the  country  settled  them  at  Babylon. 
It  came  to  pass  also  that  the  city  was  in  a  state  of  desolation 
for  a  space  of  70  years,  until  Cyrus  king  of  the  Persians. 
And  he  [i.  e.,  Berosus]  says,  that  the  Babylonians  ruled 
over  Egypt,  Syria,  Phenicia,  and  Arabia,  and  surpassed  in 
deeds  all  who  had  been  kings  before  him  over  the  Chaldeans 
and  Babylonians.' 

Further,  he  says: 

When  Nabopolassar  his  [Nebuchadnezzar's]  father,  heard 
that  the  satrap  who  had  been  stationed  in  Egypt  and  in 
the  plains  of  Ccele-Syria  and  Phenicia  had  revolted,  not 
being  able  longer  to  endure  the  evil,  having  entrusted  to  his 
son  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  was  then  in  full  manhood,  some 
parts  of  the  army,  he  sent  him  against  him  [i.  e.,  Nabopo- 

'  Josephus,  Contra  Apion,  i,  19. 


Jehoiakim's  Third  Year  57 

lassar  sent  Nebuchadnezzar  against  the  satrap  who  had 
revolted].  And  Nebuchadnezzar  having  joined  battle 
with  the  rebel  overpowered  him  and  made  the  country  a 
province  under  his  dominion.  And  it  happened  that  at 
this  time  his  father  Nabopolassar  was  seized  with  a  lingering 
ailment  and  died  in  the  city  of  the  Babylonians  after  he 
had  been  king  29  years.  Nebuchadnezzar  having  learned, 
shortly  after,  of  the  death  of  his  father,  after  he  had  set  in 
order  the  affairs  in  Egypt  and  the  rest  of  the  countries 
and  had  committed  to  some  of  his  friends  the  captives 
of  the  Jews  and  Phenicians  and  Syrians  and  of  the  nations 
belonging  to  Egypt  to  bring  into  Babylonia  with  the  bulk 
[lit.  heavy  part]  of  the  army  and  the  remainder  of  the 
spoils;  he  himself  with  a  very  few  attendants  hastened 
through  the  desert  to  Babylon,  where  he  found  that  the 
affairs  had  been  managed  by  Chaldeans  and  the  kingdom 
watched  over  by  the  best  one  of  them,  so  that  he  became 
lord  of  the  whole  of  the  government  of  his  father,  and  he 
gave  orders  to  appoint  settlements  for  the  captives  in  the 
fittest  places  of  Babylonia,  while  he  himself  from  the  spoils 
of  the  war  adorned  the  temple  of  Bel  and  other  temples 
in  a  lavish  manner. ' 

He  then  describes  the  walls  and  palaces,  adding: 

In  these  royal  palaces  he  built  lofty  stone  substructures 
and  made  the  prospect  as  like  to  a  mountain  as  possible 
by  planting  trees  of  all  sorts  and  by  making  what  is  called 
a  paradise;  because  his  queen,  who  had  been  brought 
up  in  Media,  desired  a  mountainous  situation.  ^ 

3.  Eusebius  says  that  Abydenus  in  his  history  of 
the  Assyrians  has  preserved  the  following  fragment  of 
Megasthenes,  a  Greek  historian  who  lived  about  300 
B.  c,  and  was  a  trusty  ambassador  of  Seleucus  Nicator^: 

'  Cont.  Ap.,  i,  19.  'Id.,  i,  20. 

3  Abydenus  himself  died  in  268  B.  c,  having  written,  among  other 
works,  a  history  of  Assyria.     He  is  said  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Berosus 


58  The  Book  of  Daniel 

''Nebuchadnezzar,  having  become  more  powerful  than 
Hercules,  invaded  Libya  and  Iberia,  and  when  he  had 
rendered  them  tributary,  he  extended  his  conquests 
over  the  inhabitants  of  the  shores  upon  the  right  of  the 
sea."'  These  statements  of  Abydenus,  taken  from 
Megasthenes,  are  so  indefinite  as  to  be  worthless  as 
testimony  in  regard  to  the  matter  under  discussion. 

4.  No  other  sources  make  any  mention  of  the  deeds 
of  Jehoiakim,  or  of  any  other  events  recorded  in  the 
Scriptures  as  having  occurred  in  his  days. 

Conclusion 

Summing  up  the  testimony,  we  find: 

1.  That  Kings,  Chronicles,  Berosus,  Josephus,  and 
Daniel  all  affirm  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  come  up 
against  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  Jehoiakim. 

2.  That  Chronicles,  Daniel,  Berosus,  and  Josephus 
unite  in  saying  that  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  many 
captives  from  Judea  to  Babylon  in  the  reign  of  Jehoia- 
kim. 

3.  That  Berosus  supports  the  statement  of  Daniel 
with  regard  to  the  carrying  away  of  some  of  the  vessels 
of  the  house  of  the  Lord  by  saying  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar brought  spoils  from  Judea  which  were  put  in 
the  temple  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  Babylon. 

4.  That  Berosus  supports  Daniel  in  declaring  an 
expedition  against  Jerusalem  to  have  occurred  before 
the  death  of  Nabopolassar. 

5.  That  since  Nabopolassar  died  while  Nebuchad- 
nezzar was  in  the  midst  of  his  expedition  against  Jeru- 
salem, Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  been  king  de  jure 
before  he  came  up  against  Jerusalem;  for  it  would  take 

»  Eusebius,  Prep.  Evan.,  lib.  x. 


Jehoiakim's  Third  Year  59 

the  news  of  the  death  of  Nabopolassar  several  weeks  to 
reach  Jerusalem,  and  in  those  weeks  there  wotild  have 
been  abundance  of  time  for  Nebuchadnezzar  to  have 
captured  Jerusalem,  especially  if  Jehoiakim  surrendered 
at  this  time  without  fighting  or  after  a  brief  siege,  as 
Josephus  says  that  he  did  in  his  eleventh  year. ' 

6.  That  the  book  of  Jeremiah  is  silent  with  regard 
to  all  of  these  events.  It  does  not  say  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar did  not  come  up  to  Jerusalem  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim.  It  simply  says  nothing  about  it.  Why  it 
says  nothing  about  it  we  do  not  know.  The  expedition 
or  expeditions  may  have  been  mentioned  in  *  *  the  many 
like  words"  recorded  by  Baruch  (Jer.  xxxvi,  32),  which 
have  not  been  preserved  for  us. 

7.  That,  finally,  the  statement  of  Daniel  i,  1-3, 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up  against  Jerusalem  in  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim  and  carried  captive  to  Babylon 
certain  of  the  nobility,  and  some  of  the  vessels  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord,  stands  absolutely  unimpugned  by 
any  testimony  to  be  produced  from  any  rehable  source 
of  information. 

«  Jos.,  Ant.,  X,  vi,  3.  Josephus  says  that  Jehoiakim  received  Nebu- 
chadnezzar into  the  city  out  of  fear  of  a  prediction  of  Jeremiah  "sup- 
posing that  he  should  suffer  nothing  that  was  terrible,  because  he 
neither  shut  the  gate,  nor  fought  against  him." 


CHAPTER  IV 
Nebuchadnezzar's  expedition  against  Jerusalem 

After  having  declared  that  the  author  of  Daniel  is 
wrong  in  placing  the  first  expedition  of  Nebuchadnez- 
zar against  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim, 
because  our  other  sources  of  information  are  silent  with 
regard  to  such  an  expedition,  the  critics  turn  around 
and  say  that  the  author  of  Daniel  was  acquainted  with 
the  same  sources  as  we  are,  and  yet  deliberately 
made  this  false  statement  because  of  his  erroneous 
interpretations  and  coml^inations  of  these  sources. 
He  had  before  him  the  books  of  Kings,  Chronicles,  and 
Jeremiah,  in  the  same  form,  as  far  as  they  refer  to 
Nebuchadnezzar's  relations  to  Jehoiakim  and  Jerusalem, 
that  we  have  them;  and  yet,  according  to  the  critics, 
contrary  to  these  sources,  he  incorrectly  puts  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim  as  the  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
first  expedition  against  Jerusalem,  combines  the  state- 
ments of  Kings  and  Chronicles  in  an  erroneous  manner, 
and  is  apparently  ignorant  enough  of  military  strategy, 
and  of  the  geography  of  Western  Asia,  to  suppose  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  could  make  an  expedition  into  Pales- 
tine, while  Carchemish,  as  Jeremiah  possibly  implies, 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Egyptians. 

This  is  a  plausible  argument,  and  a  very  ingenious 
one.     It  assumes  that  the  author  of  Daniel  was  ac- 

60 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  6i 

quainted  with  the  canonical  books  of  Jeremiah,  Kings, 
and  Chronicles,'  and  that  these  books,  as  far  as  they 
affect  this  subject,  had  the  same  text  that  we  now  find  in 
them ;  and  on  the  basis  of  this  assumption  asserts  that 
he  was  either  not  honest  enough  or  not  intelligent  enough 
to  use  his  sources  of  information  correctly.  To  be 
more  explicit,  this  argument  assumes  that  the  pseudo- 
Daniel  had  before  him  Jeremiah  xxv,  in  which  the 
latter  is  said  to  speak  "of  the  Chaldeans  in  a  manner 
which  appears  distinctly  to  imply  that  their  arms  had 
not  yet  been  seen  in  Judah"  before  the  fourth  year 
of  Jehoiakim;  nevertheless  he  was  either  not  bright 
enough  or  not  open-minded  enough  to  see  this  distinct 
implication,  but  must  forsooth  say  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
had  been  in  Palestine  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim. 
Again,  this  pseudo-Daniel  had  before  him  Jeremiah 
xlvi,  2,  in  which  the  defeat  of  the  army  of  Pharaoh- 
Necho  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  is  mentioned, — 
a  defeat  before  which,  say  the  critics,  there  could  be  no 
question  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  invading  Palestine;  and 
yet,  he  wilfully  says  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  invade 
Palestine  in  the  third  year  of  this  same  Jehoiakim. 
He  had  before  him  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  5,  which  im- 
plies that  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  Jehoiakim  and  a 
part  of  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  to  Babylon 
in  the  eleventh  year  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  and  yet  he 
states  that  this  seizure  of  these  vessels  of  the  house  of 

^  Of  course,  from  the  point  of  view  of  those  who  believe  that  Daniel 
was  written  in  the  sixth  century  b.  c,  it  is  impossible  that  Daniel  could 
have  been  acquainted  with  either  Kings  or  Chronicles  in  their  present 
form;  though  he  may  have  known  their  sources.  The  phrase  "in  the 
books,"  occurring  in  chapter  ix,  2,  would  seem  to  imply  that  he  had 
read  the  work  of  Jeremiah.  If  Daniel  is  authentic,  his  account  of  the 
events  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  must  be  accepted  as  genuine 
and  original,  and  as  of  equal  authority  and  trustworthiness  with  the 
records  of  Jeremiah,  Kings,  and  Chronicles. 


62  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  Lord  was  in  Jehoiakim's  third  year;  because,  for- 
sooth, he  had  read  in  the  book  of  Kings  that  Jehoiakim 
had  served  Nebuchadnezzar  three  years  before  he  re- 
belled against  him. 

Can  anyone  really  suppose  that  the  author  of 
Daniel,  provided  he  had"  no  other  data  than  those 
provided  by  the  other  biblical  books,  can  have  been 
so  dull  as  not  to  know  that  Jehoiakim,  a  king  en- 
throned by  Pharaoh-Necho  (2  Kings  xxiii,  34),  can 
not  have  served  Nebuchadnezzar  for  three  years 
before  the  latter  made  his  first  expedition  against 
Jerusalem,  inasmuch  as  it  is  plainly  stated  by  Jeremiah 
(xxv,  i)  and  implied  in  2  Kings  xxv,  8,  that  the  first 
year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  was  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoi- 
akim? Yet  the  critics  do  make  this  supposition.  They 
do  suppose  that  the  author  of  Daniel,  having  before 
him,  as  they  say,  the  books  of  Kings,  Chronicles,  and 
Jeremiah,  did  nevertheless  contradict  all  these  earlier 
accounts,  did  fail  to  perceive  their  distinct  implications, 
and  did  make  improbable  and  even  absurd  statements 
as  to  the  events  already  recorded  in  their,  to  him,  well- 
known  sources.  Lest  injustice  should  seem  to  be  done 
to  these  critics  of  the  authenticity  of  Daniel,  their 
objections  will  now  be  cited  verbatim  et  seriatim;  and 
their  assumptions  will  be  discussed  in  the  hope  of  show- 
ing that  there  is  not  one  of  them  that  has  a  real  founda- 
tion of  fact. 

Objections  Stated 

Canon  Driver  says: 

That  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged  Jerusalem  and  carried 
away  captive  some  of  the  sacred  vessels  in  the  third  year 
of  Jehoiakim  (Dan.  i,  i  f .)  though  it  cannot,  strictly  speak- 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  63 

ing,  be  disproved,  is  highly  improbable,  because,  Jeremiah 
in  the  following  year  (c.  25  &c.;  see  v.  i)  speaks  of  the 
Chaldeans  in  a  manner  which  appears  distinctly  to  imply 
that  their  arms  had  not  yet  been  seen  in  Judah.  * 

Prof.  Comill  says: 

Daniel's  fixing  the  carrying  away  into  captivity  in  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim  (Dan.  i,  i)  contradicts  all  contem- 
poraneous accounts  and  can  only  be  explained  as  due  to  a 
combination  of  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  6,  7,  with  an  erroneous 
interpretation  of  2  Klings  xxiv,  i.' 

Prof.  Bevan  says: 

It  was  not  till  after  the  defeat  of  the  Egyptian  army  at 
Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoi- 
akim (Jer.  xlvi,  2)  that  there  could  be  any  question  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  invading  Palestine,  where  for  some  years 
the  Egyptians  had  enjoyed  undisputed  supremacy.  ^ 

Assumptions  Involved 

Combining  these  statements,  we  find  that  the  carry- 
ing away  into  captivity  (especially  "of  some  of  the 
vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord")  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim  is  assimied  to  have  been  highly  improbable: 

I.  Because  Daniel  speaks  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as 
going  up  against  Jerusalem  in  Jehoiakim's  third  year 
and  Jeremiah  implies  that  he  did  not  go  up  before  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. 

II.  Because  of  the  manner  in  which  Jeremiah  in  the 
following  year  speaks  of  the  Chaldeans. 

III.  Because  of  the  erroneous  interpretation  on  the 

» LOT  p.  408. 

'Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  334. 

i  The  book  of  Daniel,  p.  16. 


64  The  Book  of  Daniel 

part  of  the  writer  of  Daniel  of  2  Kings  xxiv,  I,  combined 
with  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  6,  7. 

IV.  Because  Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  in  Jeremiah 
xlvi,  2,  to  have  defeated  the  Egyptians  at  Carchemish 
in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim;  and  it  is  not  until 
after  this  battle  "that  there  could  be  any  question  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  invading  Palestine." 

V.  Because  * '  the  Egyptians  had  enjoyed  undisputed 
supremacy"  in  Palestine  for  some  years  before  the 
battle  of  Carchemish. 

VI.  Because  it  contradicts  all  contemporaneous  ac- 
counts. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  these  assump- 
tions, it  may  be  best  to  state  and  consider  what  is 
actually  said  in  Daniel  about  what  Nebuchadnezzar 
effected  by  this  expedition.  The  writer  of  Daniel  says 
(Dan.  i,  2)  that  the  king  of  Babylon  carried  part  of  the 
vessels  of  the  house  of  God  into  the  land  of  Shinar  to 
the  house  of  his  god  and  (Dan.  i,  3,  4)  that  certain  of 
the  children  of  Israel,  even  of  the  king's  seed,  and  of  the 
princes,  were  taken  to  the  king's  palace  to  be  taught  the 
learning  and  tongue  of  the  Chaldeans.  It  is  possible, 
also,  that  the  writer  means  that  Jehoiakim  was  taken  to 
Babylon.  In  this  case,  there  are  three  points  to  be 
considered;  first,  is  it  likely  that  Jehoiakim  was  taken  to 
Babylon  in  his  third  year;  secondly,  is  it  likely  that  some 
of  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  were  taken  to 
Babylon  at  this  time;  and  thirdly,  is  it  likely  that  some 
of  the  nobility  and  of  the  royal  family  of  Judah  were 
taken  to  reside  in  the  king's  palace,  and  that  while 
there  they  were  treated  as  the  king's  proteges  ? 

As  to  the  first  of  these  points,  it  is  clear  that  the  kings 
of  Jehoiakim' s  time  were  in  the  habit  of  carrying  off 
the  kings  of  Judah  into  captivity.     In  2  Kings  xxiii, 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  65 

33 »  34»  it  is  said  that  Pharaoh-Necho  put  Jehoahaz, 
king  of  Judah,  in  bonds  at  Riblah  and  afterwards  car- 
ried him  away  and  that  he  came  to  Egypt  and  died 
there.  In  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  6,  we  read  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar bound  Jehoiakim  in  fetters  to  carry  him  to 
Babylon.  In  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  10,  it  is  said,  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar sent  and  brought  Jehoiachin  to  Babylon. 
According  to  2  Kings  xxiv,  12,  this  was  in  the  eighth 
year  of  Nebuchadnezzar*s  reign  (597-8  b.  c).  In  this 
captivity  Jehoiachin  was  kept  for  thirty- seven  years 
until  Evil-Merodach  released  him  on  the  twentj^-seventh 
day  of  the  twelfth  month  of  the  year  that  he  began 
to  reign,  that  is,  in  the  spring  of  561  B.  c. '  In  2  Kings 
XXV,  7,  we  see  that  Zedekiah  was  bound  with  fetters 
of  brass  and  carried  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  Babylon. 
In  Jeremiah  Hi,  11,  we  learn  that  he  put  him  in 
prison,  also,  and  kept  him  there  till  the  day  of  his  death. 
In  2  Chron.  xxxiii,  11,  13,  it  is  said  that  the  king 
of  Assyria  (probably  Esarhaddon)  took  Manasseh, 
king  of  Judah,  and  bound  him  with  fetters  and  carried 
him  to  Babylon;  where  Manasseh  prayed  unto  the 
Lord,  who  brought  him  again  to  Jerusalem  into  his 
kingdom. 

Of  course,  it  will  be  objected,  that  if  Daniel  is  correct 
in  his  date,  it  is  scarcely  probable  that  Jehoiakim  was 
taken  to  Babylon  in  his  third  year  and  restored  and 
that  he  was  taken  captive  to  Babylon  again  in  his 
eleventh  year.  This  improbability,  however,  is  more 
than  offset  by  the  certainty  that  Zedekiah  was  twice, 
at  least,  in  Babylon.  For  in  Jer.  li,  59,  we  learn  that  in 
his  fourth  year  he  went  to  Babylon,  doubtless  at  the 
behest  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  his  overlord;  whereas, 
in  his  eleventh  year,  he  was  taken  thither  a  second 

» 2  Kings  XXV,  2  f . 


66  The  Book  of  Daniel 

time,  after  he  had  been  captured  while  endeavoring  to 
escape  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

As  to  the  second  point,  that  some  of  the  vessels  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord  were  taken  to  Babylon  in  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  there  is  no  good  reason  for  doubting 
the  statement  of  Daniel.  To  be  sure,  Jeremiah  enu- 
merates a  large  number  of  vessels  of  the  house  of  the 
Lord  that  were  carried  away  at  the  final  capture  of 
Jerusalem^ ;  but  according  to  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  Nebuchad- 
nezzar is  said  to  have  carried  away  vessels  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord  to  Babylon  at  three  different  times,  once 
in  the  eleventh  year  of  Jehoiakim  (v.  7),  once  a  few 
months  later  when  he  carried  away  Jehoiachin  (v.  10), 
and  finally  at  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
(v.  18).  Moreover,  the  writer  of  2  Kings  says 
(xxiv,  13)  that  the  king  of  Babylon,  at  the  time 
of  Jehoiachin 's  captivity,  cut  in  pieces  all  the  ves- 
sels of  gold  which  Solomon  had  made  in  the  temple 
of  the  Lord.  All  of  these  statements  are  easily 
reconcilable,  if  we  suppose  that  Nebuchadnezzar  at 
four  different  times  carried  away  part  of  the  vessels, 
the  last  part  being  carried  away  at  the  time  of  the  final 
capture  of  Jerusalem  in  Zedekiah's  eleventh  year. 

As  to  the  third  of  these  points,  that  some  of  the 
nobility  and  of  the  royal  family  of  Judah  were  taken 
to  reside  in  the  king's  palace  and  that  while  there  they 
were  treated  as  the  king's  proteges  we  have  an  abun- 
dance of  analogies  from  ancient  records  to  prove  that  this 
may  well  have  been  true  in  Jehoiakim's  third  year,  as 
the  writer  of  Daniel  declares. 

Thus,  in  the  Scriptures  themselves,  it  is  said  in 
2  Kings  xxiv,  14, 15,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  away 
to  Babylon  not  merely  Jehoiachin  and  his  wives,  but  his 

»Lii,  17-23;  cf.  2  Kings  XXV,  13-17. 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  67 

officers  {sarisim)  and  princes  (sarim)  and  the  mighty 
of  the  land.  In  like  manner,  in  Dan.  i,  1-3,  it  is  implied 
that  Jehoiakim  was  carried  to  Babylon  along  with  some 
of  the  princes  (here  called  partumim)  and  of  the  king's 
seed. 

This  custom  was  common,  also,  among  the  Assyrian 
kings.  Thus,  Tiglath-Pileser  I  took  as  hostages  from 
Shadianteru,  king  of  Urartinash,  his  sons  and  family. ' 
Asurnasirabal  and  Shalmaneser  III,  also,  continued  the 
custom.^  Shalusunu  of  Harruna  and  his  sons  were 
pardoned  by  Shalmaneser  III,  and  sent  back  to  their 
land.  Esarhaddon  granted  favor  to  Laili,  king  of  Jadi, 
and  offered  him  friendship,  gave  him  back  his  goods 
and  the  land  of  Bazi.^  Ashurbanipal  showed  favor 
to  Necho,  king  of  Memphis,  made  treaties  {ade)  with 
him,  clothed  him  with  particolored  garments  and  a 
golden  band,  put  rings  of  gold  on  his  fingers,  and  gave 
him  an  iron  sword  adorned  with  gold  with  the  king's 
name  upon  it,  presented  him  with  wagons  and  horses, 
and  established  him  and  his  son  Nabushezibanni  in  the 
sovereignty  of  Sais.  ^ 

So  among  the  Persian  kings  may  be  noted  the  treat- 
ment of  Astyages,  Croesus,  and  Nabunaid  by  Cyrus;  of 
Antiochus  son  of  Miltiades  and  of  Democedes  the 
Crotonan  physician,  by  Darius;  and  of  Themistocles 
and  Alcibiades  by  later  kings. 

Having  thus  reviewed  what  Daniel  himself  has  to 
say  with  regard  to  what  Nebuchadnezzar  carried  away 
captive  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  and  shown  that 
what  he  says  harmonizes  with  what  we  know  from  the 
documentary  evidence  provided  by  the  monimients, 

»  KB  i,  20.     See  also  pages  22,  32,  34,~36. 

=»  KB  i,  pp.  72,  88,  104,  106,  112,  144,  148.  »  Id.,  ii,  132. 

<  KB  ii,  167.    See  also  pp.  170,  172,  178,  184,  190,  208,  222, 


68  The  Book  of  Daniel 

we  are  now  prepared  to  consider  the  assumptions  men- 
tioned above. 

I.  It  is  said,  that  Daniel  seems  to  confound  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim  with  the  fourth  year  spoken  of 
by  Jeremiah  in  chapter  xxv,  I. 

In  this  objection,  it  is  assumed,  that  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  of  which  Jeremiah  speaks  must  be  different 
from  the  third  year  of  which  Daniel  speaks.  In  view 
of  the  testimony  of  the  Babylonian  and  Egyptian 
monuments,  it  is  impossible  longer  to  uphold  this 
assumption.  Among  the  Babylonians  in  the  time  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  the  remainder  of  the  last  year  of  a 
king  was  not  called  the  *' first  year"  of  his  successor,  but 
"the  year  of  the  beginning  of  his  reign."  The  first 
year  began  on  the  first  of  Nisan  following  the  death  of 
his  predecessor.  For  example,  the  last  dated  tablet 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  which  I  have  had  access,  is  dated 
in  the  forty-third  year,  fourth  month,  twenty-seventh 
day.  The  earliest  from  the  reign  of  Evil-Merodach  is 
dated  in  the  sixth  month,  the  fourth  day  of  the  year  of 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Evil-Merodach.  ^  The 
next  earliest  is  dated  on  the  26th  day  of  the  second 
month  ^  and  there  is  one  from  the  22nd  day  of  the 
third  month  of  the  same  year.  ^  It  is  therefore  evident 
that  the  forty-third  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  the 
same  as  the  year  of  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Evil- 
Merodach;  and  the  latter's  first  year  is  what  would 
be  called  by  many  his  second  year. 

The  Egyptians,  however,  pursued  a  different  method 
of  reckoning.  "The  years  of  the  kings'  reigns  in  the 
twenty-sixth  dynasty  (of  Egypt)  began  on  New  Year's 
day";  for  "it  is  evident  that  the  fraction  of  [Psamtik 

*  See  for  this  usage  in  the  Scriptures,  2  K.  xxv,  27. 

•VSDvi,  55.  J/J.,  vi,  56. 


Nebuchadnezzar  s  Expedition  69 

the  First's]  incomplete  (55th)  year  was,  after  his  death, 
included  in  the  first  year  of  his  successor,  Necho. "' 
As  Petrie  remarks,  "The  absence  of  odd  months 
and  days  from  the  lengths  of  the  reign  shows  that  the 
dates  are  in  fixed  months  of  the  year,  and  that  the  years 
were  counted  from  New  Year's  day.  "^  To  quote 
Wilcken,^  a  king's  "  second  year  began  with  the  first 
New  Year's  day  which  he  passed  on  the  throne,  so  that 
the  last  broken  year  of  his  predecessor  was  counted  as 
his  first." 

Owing  to  these  two  methods  of  reckoning,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  third  year  of  a  king  according  to  the 
Babylonian  calendar  would  be  his  fourth  according 
to  the  Egyptian.  Among  the  Hebrews,  it  is  generally 
agreed,  that  the  Egyptian  method  of  reckoning  the 
years  of  a  king  was  employed.  * 

II.  The  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim  is  said  to  be  improbable, 
because  "of  the  way  in  which  Jeremiah  in  the  following 
year  speaks  of  the  Chaldeans."  Dr.  Driver,  in  this 
statement,  refers  to  the  25th  chapter  of  Jeremiah, 
especially  to  the  first  verse.  The  American  Revision 
gives  the  chapter  as  follows  :s 

(i)  The  word  that  came  to  Jeremiah  concerning  all  the 
people  of  Judah,  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the  son 
of  Josiah,  king  of  Judah  (the  same  was  the  first  year  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon),  (2)  which  Jeremiah  the 
prophet  spake  unto  all  the  people  of  Judah,  and  to  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  saying:  (3)  From  the  thirteenth 
year  of  Josiah  the  son  of  Amon,  king  of  Judah,  even  unto 

« Breasted,  History  of  Egypt,  vol.  iv,  sec.  975. 
■  History  of  Egypt,  iii,  339.  »  Greichische  Ostraka,  i,  783. 

*  Reginald  Stuart  Poole  in  Gmith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  i,  439. 
« We  cite  as  far  as  the  end  of  verse  33. 


70  The  Book  of  Daniel 

this  day,  these  three  and  twenty  years,  the  word  of  Jehovah 
hath  come  unto  me,  and  I  have  spoken  unto  you,  rising 
up  early  and  speaking;  but  ye  have  not  hearkened.  (4) 
And  Jehovah  hath  sent  unto  you  all  his  servants  the  pro- 
phets, rising  up  early  and  sending  them  (but  ye  have  not 
hearkened,  nor  inclined  your  ear  to  hear),  (5)  saying,  Return 
ye  now  every  one  from  his  evil  way,  and  from  the  evil  of 
your  doings,  and  dwell  in  the  land  that  Jehovah  hath  given 
unto  you  and  to  your  fathers,  from  of  old  and  even  for  ever- 
more; (6)  and  go  not  after  other  gods  to  serve  them  and  to 
worship  them,  and  provoke  me  not  to  anger  with  the  work  of 
your  hands ;  and  I  will  do  you  no  hurt.  (7)  Yet  ye  have  not 
hearkened  unto  me,  saith  Jehovah ;  that  ye  may  provoke  me 
to  anger  with  the  work  of  your  hands  to  your  own  hurt.  (8) 
Therefore  thus  saith  Jehovah  of  hosts :  Because  ye  have  not 
heard  my  words,  (9)  behold,  I  will  send  and  take  all  the 
families  of  the  north,  saith  Jehovah,  and  I  will  send  unto 
Nebuchadnezzar  the  king  of  Babylon,  my  servant,  and  will 
bring  them  against  this  land,  and  against  the  inhabitants 
thereof,  and  against  all  these  nations  round  about;  and 
I  will  utterly  destroy  them,  and  make  them  an  astonish- 
ment, and  a  hissing,  and  perpetual  desolations.  (10)  More- 
over I  will  take  from  them  the  voice  of  mirth  and  the  voice 
of  gladness,  the  voice  of  the  bridegroom  and  the  voice  of 
the  bride,  the  sound  of  the  millstones,  and  the  light  of  the 
lamp.  (11)  And  this  whole  land  shall  be  a  desolation,  and 
as  astonishment;  and  these  nations  shall  serve  the  king  of 
Babylon  seventy  years. 

(12)  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  seventy  years 
are  accomplished,  that  I  will  punish  the  king  of  Babylon, 
and  that  nation,  saith  Jehovah,  for  their  iniquity,  and  the 
land  of  the  Chaldeans ;  and  I  will  make  it  desolate  forever. 
(13)  And  I  will  bring  upon  that  land  all  my  words  which  I 
have  pronounced  against  it,  even  all  'that  is  written  in  this 
book,  which  Jeremiah  hath  prophesied  against  all  the  na- 
tions. (14)  For  many  nations  and  great  kings  shall  make 
bondmen  of  them,  even  of  them;  and  I  will  recompense 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  71 

them  according  to  their  deeds,  and  according  to  the  work  of 
their  hands. 

(15)  For  thus  saith  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  unto  me: 
Take  this  cup  of  the  wine  of  wrath  at  my  hand,  and  cause  all 
the  nations,  to  whom  I  send  thee,  to  drink  it.  (i 6)  And  they 
shall  drink,  and  reel  to  and  fro,  and  be  mad,  because  of  the 
sword  that  I  will  send  among  them.  (17)  Then  took  I  the 
cup  at  Jehovah's  hand  and  made  all  the  nations  to  drink, 
unto  whom  Jehovah  had  sent  me :  (18)  to  wit,  Jerusalem,  and 
the  cities  of  Judah,  and  the  kings  thereof,  and  the  princes 
thereof,  to  make  them  a  desolation,  an  astonishment, 
a  hissing,  and  a  curse  as  it  is  this  day;  (19)  Pharaoh 
king  of  Egypt,  and  his  servants,  and  his  princes,  and  all  his 
people;  (20)  and  all  the  mingled  people,  and  all  the  kings  of 
the  land  of  Uz,  and  all  the  kings  of  the  land  of  the  Philistines, 
and  Ashkelon,  and  Gaza,  and  Ekron,  and  the  remnant  of 
Ashdod;  (21)  Edom,  and  Moab,  and  the  children  of  Ammon; 
(22)  and  all  the  kings  of  Tyre,  and  all  the  kings  of  Sidon, 
and  the  kings  of  the  isle  which  is  beyond  the  sea;  (23) 
Dedan,  and  Tema,  and  Buz,  and  all  that  have  the  corners 
of  their  hair  cut  off;  (24)  and  all  the  kings  of  Arabia,  and 
all  the  kings  of  the  mingled  people  that  dwell  in  the 
wilderness;  (25)  and  all  the  kings  of  Zimri,  and  all  the 
kings  of  Elam,  and  all  the  kings  of  the  Medes;  (26)  and 
all  the  kings  of  the  north,  far  and  near,  one  with  another; 
and  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  which  are  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth :  and  the  king  of  Sheshach  shall  drink 
after  them. 

(27)  And  thou  shalt  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  Jehovah 
of  Hosts,  the  God  of  Israel:  Drink  ye,  and  be  drunken, 
and  spew,  and  fall,  and  rise  no  more,  because  of  the  sword 
which  I  will  send  among  you.  (28)  And  it  shall  be,  if  they 
refuse  to  take  the  cup  at  thy  hand  to  drink,  then  shalt 
thou  say  unto  them.  Thus  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts:  Ye  shall 
surely  drink.  (29)  For,  lo,  I  begin  to  work  evil  at  the  city 
which  is  called  by  my  name;  and  should  ye  be  utterly 
unpunished?      Ye  shall  not  be  unpunished;  for  I  will  call 


^2  The  Book  of  Daniel 

for  the  sword  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth,  saith 
Jehovah  of  Hosts. 

(30)  Therefore  prophesy  thou  against  them  all  these 
words,  and  say  unto  them,  Jehovah  will  roar  from  on  high, 
and  utter  his  voice  from  his  holy  habitation ;  he  will  mightily 
roar  against  his  fold ;  he  will  give  a  shout,  as  they  that  tread 
the  grapes,  against  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  (31)  A 
noise  shall  come  even  to  the  end  of  the  earth;  for  Jehovah 
hath  a  controversy  with  the  nations;  he  will  enter  into 
judgment  with  all  flesh:  as  for  the  wicked,  he  will  give 
them  to  the  sword,  saith  Jehovah. 

(32)  Thus  saith  Jehovah  of  Hosts,  Behold,  evil  shall  go 
forth  from  nation  to  nation,  and  a  great  tempest  shall 
be  raised  up  from  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth.  (33) 
And  the  slain  of  Jehovah  shall  be  at  that  day  from  one  end 
of  the  earth  even  unto  the  other  end  of  the  earth;  they  shall 
not  be  lamented,  neither  gathered,  nor  buried;  they  shall  be 
dung  upon  the  face  of  the  ground. 


It  will  be  noted  by  the  reader: 

First,  that  nothing  is  said  here  about  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim. 

Secondly,  that  nothing  is  said  about  an  expedition 
in  the  fourth  year. 

Thirdly,  that  it  is  said  simply,  that  the  word  of  the 
Lord  came  unto  Jeremiah  in  the  fourth  year. 

Fourthly,  that  the  prophecy  refers  to  events  still 
future  with  reference  to  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. 
See  verses  9-33. 

Fifthly,  that  the  phrase  in  the  eighteenth  verse,  **as  it 
is  this  day, "  implies  that  Judah  had  been  already  con- 
quered and  devastated. 

Lastly,  that  the  failure  to  mention  Nebuchadnezzar's 
expedition  in  the  third  year,  or  his  overlordship  in  the 
fourth  year,  is  no  more  striking  than  his  failure  to  men- 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  73 

tion  Necho.  The  failure  to  mention  Necho  is  especially 
noteworthy,  if  he  were  still  overlord  of  Judah  when 
this  prophecy  was  made. 

III.  The  statement  that  there  was  an  expedition 
in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  is  said  to  arise  from 
an  erroneous  interpretation  on  the  part  of  the  writer  of 
Daniel  of  2  Kings  xriv,  I,  combined  with  2  Chron. 
xxxvi,  6,  7.     The  verse  from  Kings  reads  as  follows: 

In  his  days  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  came  up, 
and  Jehoiakim  became  his  servant  three  3^ears:  then  he 
turned  and  rebelled  against  him  [i.  e.,  rebelled  again 
against  him].     (2  Kings  xxiv,  I.) 

The  verses  from  Chronicles  read  thus : 

(6)  Against  him  came  up  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Baby- 
lon, and  bound  him  in  fetters,  to  carry  him  to  Babylon.  (7) 
Nebuchadnezzar  also  carried  off  the  vessels  of  the  house 
of  Jehovah  to  Babylon,  and  put  them  in  his  temple  at 
Babylon.     (2  Chron.  xxxvi,  6,  7.) 

Comparing  these  verses  with  Daniel  i,  I,  it  will  be 
remarked : 

First,  that  neither  Kings  nor  Chronicles  says  one 
word  about  the  year  of  the  expedition,  nor 

Secondly,  whether  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up  once, 
or  twice,  or  several  times. 

Thirdly,  that  Daniel  does  not  say  anything  about 
the  putting  of  Jehoiakim  in  chains,  nor 

Fourthly,  about  the  carrying  of  Jehoiakim  to  Baby- 
lon, but 

Fifthly,  that  both  Daniel  and  Chronicles  do  state  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  brought  a  part  of  the  vessels  of  the 
house  of  the  Lord  to  Babylon.  These  statements 
harmonize  perfectly  with  each  other,  and,  also,  v/ith 


74  The  Book  of  Daniel 

2  Kings  XXV,  13-17,  which  mentions  in  detail  the 
vessels,  pillars,  etc.,  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  which  were 
carried  to  Babylon  at  the  time  of  the  final  capture  of 
Jerusalem. 

Sixthly,  there  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for  supposing 
that  the  writer  of  Daniel  got  his  information  from 
either  Kings  or  Chronicles,  much  less  that  he  made  an 
*' erroneous  interpretation"  of  them.  The  statements 
of  the  three  books  are  entirely  harmonious.  There 
is  absolutely  no  error  in  Daniel's  narrative,  so  far  as 
can  be  seen  from  a  comparison  of  his  account  with  the 
accounts  in  Kings  and  Chronicles.  On  this  matter, 
the  average  reader  is  just  as  well  able  to  judge  as 
the  most  learned  professor  in  Christendom.  There 
is  here  no  dispute  about  texts  or  versions.  The 
learned  counsel  for  the  prosecution  asserts  that  the 
writer  of  Daniel  got  his  information  from  Kings  and 
Chronicles,  and  that  he  did  not  know  enough  to  take 
it  straight,  and  presumes  that  the  ignorant  jury,  his 
credulous  readers,  will  not  be  able  to  perceive  that  his 
assertion  is  not  proof ! 

IV.  It  is  said  to  be  improbable  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar advanced  upon  Jerusalem  in  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  because  in  Jeremiah  xlvi,  2,  he  is 
said  to  have  captured  Carchemish  in  the  fourth  year 
of  Jehoiakim.  This  statement  is  based  on  the  as- 
sumption that  Nebuchadnezzar  would  scarcely  have 
dared  to  advance  on  Jerusalem,  leaving  a  strong  garri- 
son of  Egyptians  entrenched  in  his  rear  and  at  such  a 
strategic  point  as  Carchemish,  which  commanded  the 
Euphrates  and  the  great  routes  of  possible  retreat  from 
Palestine  by  way  of  Palmyra  and  by  way  of  the  Oron- 
tes  valley. 

This  argument  involves  several  assumptions: 


Nebuchadnezzar^s  Expedition  75 

It  is  an  assumption  to  say  that  Pharaoh-Necho  ever 
conquered  Carchemish.  In  2  Kings  xxiii,  29,  it  is 
said  that  Pharaoh-Necho  went  up  against  the  king 
of  Assyria  to  the  river  Euphrates;  and  that  King 
Josiah  went  against  him  and  was  slain  by  him  at  Meg- 
iddo.  In  2  Chron.  xxxv,  20,  it  is  said  that  **Necho  king 
of  Egypt  went  up  to  fight  against  Carchemish  by 
Euphrates:  and  Josiah  went  out  against  him"  "in  the 
valley  of  Megiddo"  (xxxv.  22),  and  in  the  battle, 
Josiah  was  so  wounded  that  he  died  shortly  after  in 
Jerusalem  (xxxv,  23,  24).  We  are  not  informed 
whether  Necho  reached  Carchemish  in  this  campaign, 
much  less  that  he  captured  it.  Our  only  evidence  on 
the  subject  is  that  he  went  as  far  as  Riblah  in  the  land 
of  Hamath,'  which  was  in  the  valley  of  the  Orontes  on 
the  way  to  the  Euphrates  on  whose  left  bank  Carche- 
mish was  situated.  Notice,  it  is  not  affirmed  that  he  did 
not  reach  the  Euphrates,  nor  that  he  did  not  capture 
Carchemish;  but  merely  that  no  texts  that  we  have 
assert  that  he  did,  or  to  be  more  precise,  that  he 
reached  it  in  this  campaign.  We  are  informed  merely 
that  he  set  out  for  the  Euphrates  and  Carchemish ;  but 
Josiah  interfered  with  his  plans,  and  we  are  left  to  con- 
jecture as  to  whether  he  proceeded  farther  than  Rib- 
lah. Remember,  that  no  contemporaneous  source 
outside  the  Scripture  says  anything  about  an  expedi- 
tion of  Necho  against  Assyria,  nor  of  his  ever  having 
come  to  Carchemish. 

But  are  we  not  told  in  Jeremiah  xlvi,  2,  **  concerning 
the  army  of  Pharaoh-Necho  king  of  Egypt,  which  was  by 
the  river  Euphrates  in  Carchemish,  which  Nebuchad- 
nezzar king  of  Babylon  smote  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim"?     True.      But    the    assumption    here    is, 

»  2  Kings  xxiii,  33. 


76  The  Book  of  Daniel 

that  because  the  army  was  there  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  it  must  have  arrived  there  in  or  before  his 
third  year,  when  Daniel  says  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
came  to  Jerusalem.  Notice,  it  is  not  affirmed  that 
Necho,  or  his  army  at  least,  did  not  reach  the  Euphra- 
tes, or  that  it  did  not  capture  Carchemish,  in  the  first 
year,  or  in  the  second  year,  or  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  but  simply,  that  it  is  an  assumption,  an 
inference,  that  he  did.  There  is  no  direct  evidence, 
no  explicit  statement,  of  any  contemporaneous  author, 
that  Necho  himself  ever  saw  the  Euphi*ates;  nor  that 
his  army  ever  occupied  Carchemish. 

But  does  it  not  say  that  Necho  "went  up  against 
the  king  of  Assyria  to  the  river  Euphrates"?  To  be 
sure;  but  even  Von  Lengerke  admits  that  the  Hebrew 
verb  must  be  taken  here  as  meaning  ' '  started  to  go  up. "  ^ 
If,  however,  this  be  not  admitted,  then  the  sentence 
which  follows^  can  only  be  interpreted  as  meaning, 
that  Josiah  came  out  to  meet  Necho  on  his  way  back 
from  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates;  or  the  verb  would 
have  to  be  rendered  by  a  pluperfect,  which  possibility, 
all  critics  would  instantly  reject. 

Again,  someone  may  say,  does  not  the  text  of  Jere- 
miah xlvi,  2,  clearly  state,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  smote 
the  army  of  Pharaoh-Necho  by  the  river  Euphrates 
w  Carchemish?  Yes.  The  English  authorized  version 
says  so.  ^    But  the  Hebrew  may  just  as  well  be  rendered 

*  Das  Buck  Daniel,  p.  14. 

*  Introduced  as  it  is  in  Hebrew  by  Wau  converso-consecutive. 

3  Jeremiah  xlvi,  i,  2,  reads  as  follows:  "The  word  of  the  Lord  which 
came  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet  against  the  Gentiles;  against  Egypt, 
against  the  army  of  Pharaoh-Necho  king  of  Egypt,  which  was  by  [Heb. 
'a/]  the  river  Euphrates,  in  [Heb.  Z>']  Carchemish,  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
king  of  Babylon  smote  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah 
king  of  Judah. 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  77 

at  or  hy  Carchemish;  in  which  case,  it  is  equally  prob- 
able that  the  Egyptians  were  attacked  while  besieging 
the  city,  as  while  defending  it.  Granting,  however, 
that  the  Egyptians  had  possession  of  Carchemish  at  the 
time  of  the  battle,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  had 
possession  of  it  since  the  first  year  of  Jehoiakim.  It  is 
certainly  possible,  that  they  may  have  captured  it,  or 
that  it  may  have  voluntarily  thrown  open  its  gates 
to  them,  between  the  time  when  Nebuchadnezzar 
besieged  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  and 
the  time  when  the  battle  was  fought  in  his  fourth  year. 
The  tablets  show  that  Nabopolassar  was  still  reigning 
in  the  second  month  of  his  twenty-first  year  and  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  was  certainly  king  in  the  fourth  month 
of  the  same  year.  The  last  tablet  from  the  reign  of  Nab- 
opolassar thus  far  published  is  dated  in  the  2d  month 
of  the  last  year  of  his  reign.  The  first  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar is  dated  on  the  14th  day  gf  the  4th  month  of  the 
same  year.  When  Nebuchadnezzar  had  been  called 
back  so  suddenly  to  Babylon  by  the  death  of  his  father, 
what  more  likely  than  that  Necho  should  have  seized 
upon  this  opportunity  to  overrun  the  whole  country 
as  far  as  the  Euphrates  and  that  Carchemish  should 
have  surrendered  to  him?  At  least,  no  one  can  deny 
that  this  may  have  happened.  More  arduous  and 
lengthy  campaigns  have  been  made  hundreds  of  times. 
A  few  weeks  are  all  that  would  be  necessary  to  march 
from  Pelusium,  or  Gaza,  to  Carchemish. 

Finally,  however,  even  granting  that  Pharaoh-Necho 
or  his  army  reached  the  Euphrates  in  the  first  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  and  that  Carchemish  was  captured,  or  oc- 
cupied peaceably,  by  the  Egyptians  before  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim,  what  follows?  That  Nebuchad- 
nezzar did  not  besiege  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of 


78  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Jehoiakim,  because  he  would  not  have  dared,  forsooth, 
to  leave  a  hostile  fortress  in  his  rear?  Certainly  not. 
Such  things  are  occurring  all  the  time  in  modern  war- 
fare and  have  occurred  in  countless  campaigns  since 
the  beginning  of  human  history.  Witness  in  our  life- 
time Strassbourg  and  Port  Arthur  and  Adrianople  and 
Antwerp.  Witness  Genoa  and  other  Italian  fortresses 
during  Napoleon's  campaigns  in  Italy.  Witness 
Scipio's  carrying  the  war  into  Africa,  while  Hannibal 
was  still  within  striking  distance  of  Rome.  Witness 
Nebuchadnezzar's  own  campaign  against  Jerusalem, 
while  Tyre  was  still  unconquered  in  his  rear.  It  is 
perfectly  obvious  that  if  Nebuchadnezzar  could  conquer 
Palestine  and  Syria,  it  would  be  only  a  question  of  time 
when  Carchemish  and  all  the  other  cities  held  by 
Egyptian  garrisons  must  fall,  as  Danzig  fell,  and  had  to 
fall,  when  Napoleon  could  not  make  head  against  the 
allied  troops  and  come  to  its  relief.  For  it  is  not 
likely — at  least  we  have  no  evidence — that  either 
Babylon,  or  the  line  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  communi- 
cation with  Babylon,  was  in  any  danger,  or  can  have 
been  in  any  danger  from  the  armies  of  Egypt  then 
present  in  Syria.  For  a  hundred  years,  the  Egyptians 
had  met  the  Assyrian  armies  on  many  a  field  and  had 
been  repeatedly  defeated,  and  the  land  of  Egypt  had 
many  times  been  conquered  by  her  more  warlike  foes. 
Nebuchadnezzar's  armies  were  composed  largely  of  the 
same  materials  as  those  of  his  predecessors  of  Nineveh, 
and  succeeded  to  their  renown  and  military  superior- 
ity. He  may  well  have  risked  much  in  his  conscious- 
ness of  strength.  It  must  be  remembered  also  that 
Carchemish  was  not  on  the  most  direct  line  of  commu- 
nication between  Jerusalem  and  Bab^don.  The  route 
from  Jerusalem  to  Babylon  by  way  of  Damascus  and 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  79 

Palmyra  crossed  the  Euphrates  about  250  miles  below 
Carchemish,  at  a  place  called  Thapsacus  where  there  is 
a  shallow  ford  often  only  eighteen  inches  deep.  Here  is 
where  the  ten  thousand  crossed.  Here  is  where  Alex- 
ander crossed  (Arr.,  iii,  7).  As  long  as  the  Babylonians 
held  control  of  this  ford  and  of  Palmyra  and  Da- 
mascus, their  line  of  com.munication  with  Pales- 
tine through  the  desert  would  be  safe.  Necho's  only 
possible  plans  must  have  been  either  to  fight  and 
conquer  Nebuchadnezzar  himself  in  Palestine;  or  to 
break  his  line  of  communication  at  Damascus  by  an 
army  acting  from  Hamath  or  Tyre,  or  at  Thapsacus 
by  an  army  acting  from  Carchemish.  In  either  of 
these  cases,  the  triumph  of  the  Egyptians  must  at  best 
have  been  but  temporary,  unless  they  had  been  power- 
ful enough  to  overcome  Nebuchadnezzar's  army,  and 
the  army  of  his  father  Nabopolassar,  in  the  field. 

V.  It  is  asserted,  that  the  Egyptians  had  enjoyed 
undisputed  supremacy  in  Palestine  for  some  years 
before  the  battle  of  Carchemish. 

The  purpose  of  this  assertion  is  to  show  that  the 
statement  of  Daniel  i,  i,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged 
Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  is  false,  inas- 
much as  the  battle  of  Carchemish  was  in  the  fourth 
year  of  the  latter.  No  proofs  are  given  in  support  of 
this  assertion ;  and  we  claim,  that  it  is  a  pure  assumption 
based  upon  insufficient  evidence,  and  a  begging  of  the 
whole  question  at  issue. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  the  records  of  Egypt  give  us 
no  ground  for  such  a  statement.  Prof.  Breasted,  ^  gives 
us  only  two  Egyptian  documents  bearing  on  the  reign 
of  Necho,  neither  of  which  so  much  as  mentions  Pales- 
tine.    The  Babylonian  documents  give  us  no  informa- 

'  Ancient  Records  of  Egypi^  vol.  iv,  pages  498,  499. 


8o  The  Book  of  Daniel 

tion  upon  the  subject.  The  only  authorities  regarding 
the  Palestinian  expeditions  and  relations  of  Necho  given 
by  Prof.  Petrie  in  his  History  of  Egypt  are  Herodotus 
and  the  Bible  and  the  fragment  of  an  Egyptian  monu- 
ment found  at  Sidon. '  All  that  Herodotus  has  to  say 
upon  Necho 's  connection  with  Palestine  is  as  follows: 
* 'Necho  having  come  to  an  engagement  with  the  Syrians 
on  land  at  Magdolus,  conquered  them,  and  after  the 
battle  took  Cadytis,  which  is  a  large  city  in  Syria. 
Afterward,  having  reigned  sixteen  years  in  all,  he  died 
and  left  the  kingdom  to  his  son  Psammis."^ 

The  biblical  sources  of  information  upon  this  matter 
are  extremely  meager.  Jeremiah  mentions  Necho  but 
once — namely,  in  xlvi,  2,  which  reads  in  the  American 
Standard  Edition;  ' '  Of  Egypt :  concerning  the  army  of 
Pharaoh-Necho  king  of  Egypt,  which  was  by  the  river 
Euphrates  in  [Heb.  b']  Carchemish,  which  Nebuchad- 
nezzar king  of  Babylon  smote  in  the  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah  king  of  Judah. "  It  is 
possible,  also  that  Jeremiah  refers  to  the  period  be- 
fore Jehoiakim's  fourth  year  in  xlvii,  i,  which  reads: 
*'The  word  of  Jehovah  that  came  to  Jeremiah  the  pro- 
phet concerning  the  Philistines,  before  that  Pharaoh 
smote  Gaza."  The  Egyptian  fragment  from  Sidon 
proves  merely  that  Necho  at  some  time  in  his  reign 
held  possession  of  that  city. 

It  seems  clear  then  that  we  are  fully  justified  in  assert- 
ing, that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  assuming  that 
there  is  anything  improbable  in  the  statements 
of  the  book  of  Daniel  about  the  campaigns  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar against  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim. 

VI.     It   is   said   by  the   critics   that   the  carrying 

»  See  vol.  iii,  336.  »  Bk.  II,  159. 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Expedition  8i 

away  of  Judah  into  captivity  in  the  third  year  of 
Jehoiakim  is  highly  improbable  because  *'it  contradicts 
all  contemporaneous  accounts. " 

Inasmuch  as  there  are  no  contemporaneous  docu- 
ments known,  which  say  one  word  about  the  move- 
ments of  either  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  Jehoiakim,  in  the 
third  year  of  the  latter  king,  we  may  safely  rule  this 
objection  out  of  court.  It  cannot  be  too  strongly  em- 
phasized that  whatever  his  creed,  or  learning,  or  critical 
acumen,  or  insight,  the  ipse  dixits,  the  mere  assertions, 
of  any  man  with  regard  to  the  movements  of  the  kings 
of  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  are  worthy  of  abso- 
lutely no  consideration  whatsoever,  insofar  as  they  are 
unsupported  by  evidence.  What  any  man  thinks  about 
the  matter  is  opinion,  not  evidence.  Necho,  king  of 
Egypt,  and  all  the  records  of  Egypt  are  silent  about  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  N^bopolassar  and  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, kings  of  Babylon,  and  the  Babylonian  documents 
of  a  private  as  well  as  of  a  public  character,  are  silent 
about  it.  The  biblical  books  of  Kings,  Chronicles,  Jere- 
miah and  Ezekiel,  are  silent  with  regard  to  it.  Berosus, 
the  Babylonian  historian,  and  Josephus,  the  Jewish  his- 
torian, who  claim  to  have  had  access  to  contemporane- 
ous doctiments,  support  the  statement  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar had  made  an  expedition  across  the  Euphrates 
a  short  time  before  his  father  Nabopolassar  died;  that  is, 
either  in  the  third  or  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim.  The 
writer  of  Dan.  i,  I,  declares  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did 
make  an  expedition  against  Jerusalem  in  the  third 
year  of  Jehoiakim.  As  to  this  point,  the  writer  of  the 
book  of  Daniel,  at  whatever  time  it  was  written,  would 
probably  know  more  than  we  do  to-day;  for  we  know 
nothing.  No  evidence  proves  nothing.  This  attack 
on  the  veracity  of  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel 

6 


S2  The  Book  of  Daniel 

should  be  ruled  out  until  some  evidence  is  forthcoming 
to  show  that  he  did  not  come  up  against  Jerusalem 
during  this  third  year  of  Jehoiakim. 

Conclusion 

So  that,  in  concluding  the  discussion  of  the  objections 
to  Daniel  on  the  ground  of  the  date  given  in  chapter  i,  i , 
let  us  say  that  to  harmonize  perfectly  the  apparent 
anachronisms  of  Daniel  i,  i,  and  Jeremiah  xxv,  i,  we 
have  only  to  suppose  that  Jeremiah  writing  in  Pales- 
tine used  the  manner  of  reckoning  common  in  that 
country,  and  that  Daniel  writing  in  Babylon  used 
the  method  there  employed;  or  to  assume  that  there 
were  two  distinct  expeditions,  one  in  the  3rd  and  one 
in  the  4th  year  of  Jehoiakim. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  USE  OF  THE  WORD    "KING" 

Let  me  but  define  the  terms  and  I  shall  win  in  almost 
any  argument.  Let  me  use  my  terms  in  one  sense 
while  my  opponent  uses  the  same  terms  in  another  sense, 
and  we  shall  probably  never  agree.  The  importance 
of  closely  defining  the  use  of  terms  and  using  these 
terms  in  the  sense  defined  is  commonly  recognized  in 
the  spheres  of  philosophy,  theology,  grammar,  law, 
mathematics,  in  every  department  of  natural  science  and 
in  every  kind  of  rational  discussion.  Is  man  immortal  ? 
That  depends  on  how  you  define  immortality.  Cer- 
tainly, his  material  body  is  not.  Are  there  three  persons 
in  the  Trinity?  That  depends  on  your  definition  of 
person.  Is  a  corporation,  an  animal,  or  a  plant,  a 
person?    That  again  depends  on  a  definition. 

But  the  definition  of  a  term  in  its  present  uses  may 
differ  from  the  definition  of  the  term  in  its  former,  or 
original  use.  Thus  the  word  person  originally  meant 
*'a  mask  for  actors."  Later,  it  meant  a  "part  acted 
on  the  stage."  Then  we  have  its  theological,  legal, 
grammatical,  and  biological  uses,  all  strictly  defined. 
Last  of  all,  there  are  its  common  uses  to  denote  an 
individual  htmian  being,  or  even  ''the  body  of  a  human 
being,  or  its  characteristic  appearance  or  condition." 

From  the  present  uses  of  the  word  person  in  English, 
we  learn :  First,  that  it  is  never  used  in  the  sense  of  its 

83 


84  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Latin  etymon;  secondly,  that  in  the  sense  of  **a  part 
acted  on  the  stage, "  it  has  become  obsolete;  and  thirdly, 
that  it  has  several  different  uses  in  common  speech  and 
at  least  four  different  connotations  in  as  many  different 
sciences.  It  may  be  remarked,  further,  that  in  no  other 
language,  ancient  or  modern,  do  we  find  the  word 
used  in  just  these  senses,  nor  any  other  single  word 
exactly  corresponding  to  it.  To  confirm  this  statement, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  turn  up  an  English- Latin,  English- 
French,  English-German,  or  English-what-you-will 
dictionary. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  before  making  asser- 
tions based  upon  the  meanings  of  the  word  person  in  an 
English  work  that  has  been  translated  from  some 
foreign  tongue,  it  would  be  best  to  look  up  the  uses  of 
the  term  in  the  original,  in  order  to  see  if  the  word 
there  found  connotes  exactly  what  person  connotes  in 
English.  The  question  of  primary  importance  here 
is,  whether  the  word  translated  by  person  meant 
the  same  in  the  original  language  that  person  means 
in  ours.  And  to  find  this  out,  it  is  not  enough  to 
know  merely  the  meaning  of  the  word  person  in  English 
at  the  time  that  the  translation  was  made;  but,  also, 
the  meaning  of  the  corresponding  word  in  the  original 
document  at  the  time  when  it  was  written.  If,  at  the 
time  when  the  translation  is  made,  there  is  not  in  the 
language  into  which  the  translation  is  made,  a  word 
corresponding  exactly  to  the  meaning  of  the  original, 
one  of  three  things  must  be  done :  either  a  new  word  must 
be  coined,  or  a  new  meaning  must  be  given  to  an  old 
word,  or  the  word  of  the  original  must  be  adopted  into 
the  translation. 

Many  of  the  ambiguities  of  the  Scriptures  arise 
from  this  almost  insurmountable  difficulty  in  making 


Use  of  the  Word  **  King  "  85 

a  correct  translation  from  the  original  text.  To  coin 
new  words,  or  to  take  over  a  word  from  the  original, 
u  often  to  make  the  version  unintelligible  to  the  ordi- 
nary reader  for  whom  the  version  is  primarily  prepared; 
while,  to  use  an  old  word  in  a  new  meaning  is  to  lay  the 
reader  open  to  a  misunderstanding  of  the  true  sense  of  a 
passage.  This  is  the  fundamental  reason  why  all  ap- 
peals in  matters  of  biblical  doctrine  should  be  made  to 
the  original  languages  of  the  Scripture.  This  is  the 
true  and  sufficient  reason  why  all  discussion  among 
scholars  as  to  the  meaning  of  disputed  passages  should 
be  based  upon  the  ipsissima  verba.  This  is  a  firm  and 
ever  existing  ground  for  the  insistence  of  the  church, 
that  her  teachers  shall  be  thoroughly  conversant  with 
the  original  languages  of  the  Word  of  God.  Transla- 
tions must  err,  because  no  given  language  has  terms 
for  expressing  thought  which  exactly  correspond  to  the 
terminology  of  another. 

The  above  discussion  will  make  plain  to  the  lay 
mind,  why  it  has  been  thought  necessary  to  devote  a 
large  part  of  this  volume  to  a  consideration  of  the 
connotations  of  terms.  It  is  because  in  the  sphere  of 
history  as  well  as  in  that  of  theology,  philosophy,  and 
science,  the  divergencies  of  our  authorities  have  arisen 
largely  from  difficulties  and  ambiguities  arising  from, 
and  inherent  in,  the  very  nature  of  language,  and 
especially  from  the  inadequacy  of  one  language  to  express 
with  exactness  the  ideas  involved  in  the  vocables 
of  another.  This  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  devoting  so 
much  effort  to  the  elucidation  of  the  terms  on  whose 
correct  definition  depends  in  large  measure  the  issue 
of  the  matters  in  debate. 

The  first  words  to  be  considered  are  the  words 
for  "king,"  because  these  words  constitute  the  sub- 


86  The  Book  of  Daniel 

stance  of  many  of  the  objections  against  the  historicity 
of  the  book  of  Daniel.  What  is  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "king"?  Can  Nebuchadnezzar  have  been 
called  ''king  of  Babylon"  before  the  decease  of  his 
father  Nabopolassar,  king  of  Babylon?  May  Darius 
have  been  king  at  the  same  time  that  Cyrus  was  king  ? 
What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  ** kingdom"?  May 
Nabunaid,  Belshazzar,  and  Cyrus,  may  Darius  the 
Mede  and  Cyrus,  the  Persian,  have  had  "  the  kingdom" 
at  the  same  time?  Upon  our  answer  to  these  questions 
will  depend  largely  our  attitude  to  the  question  of  the 
historicity  of  the  book  of  Daniel. 

That  I  may  not  seem  to  be  beating  a  man  of  straw, 
I  shall  now  revert  in  the  discussion  of  this  matter  to  my 
ordinary  method  of  procedure,  stating  and  discussing 
the  various  objections,  and  assumptions  involved 
in  them,  in  so  far  as  they  are  connected  with  the  defini- 
tion of  the  words  for  king,  deferring  the  discussion  of 
the  words  for  kingdom  to  the  second  volimie  which 
will  be  concerned  solely  with  the  language  of  Daniel. 
First  of  all  I  shall  consider  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

Objection  Stated 

Prof.  Bertholdt  makes  the  following  objection  to  the 
possibility  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  having  been  called  king 
as  early  as  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  that  is,  a  year 
before  the  death  of  his  father  Nabopolassar: 

Jeremiah  xxv,  (i)  says,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  ascended 
the  throne  in  Babylon  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim. 
How  then  is  it  possible,  that  according  to  the  composer 
of  this  biographical  sketch  of  Daniel,  the  King  Nebu- 
chadnezzar could  already  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim 
have  besieged  and  taken  Jerusalem?^ 

»  Bertholdt 's  Daniel,  p.  169. 


Use  of  the  Word  "King"  87 

That  is,  Nebuchadnezzar  could  not  have  been  called 
*'king  of  Babylon"  in  describing  what  he  did  in  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  since  he  did  not  as  a  matter 
of  fact  become  king  until  the  latter's  fourth  year. 
Hence,  only  someone  ignorant  of  this  fact  could  possi- 
bly have  written  Daniel  i,  i.  As  a  man  carried  away 
by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  living  at  Nebuchadnezzar's 
court  cannot  have  been  ignorant  of  such  a  simple  mat- 
ter, the  mis-statement  cannot  possibly  have  been  penned 
by  the  Daniel  of  tradition  or  by  a  contemporary  of 
his,  unless,  forsooth,  he  had  wished  to  misrepresent 
the  facts. 

Assumptions  Involved 

It  will  be  noted,  that  this  objection  is  valid  only  when 
we  make  one  or  more  of  the  following  assumptions  in 
regard  to  the  use  of  the  word  "king": 

1.  That  one  cannot  truthfully  refer  to  a  man  as 
king,  unless  he  was  reigning  at  the  time  referred  to. 

2.  That  a  man  related  to  a  king  may  not  have 
been  called  king  for  the  sake  of  distinction  or  honor. 

3.  That  the  word  for  king  as  used  by  Daniel  must 
have  had  the  same  meaning,  the  same  connotation  that 
we  would  assign  to  it  to-day. 

Answer  to  the  Objection 

All  of  the  assimiptions  just  stated  must  be  shown  to 
be  true,  before  we  will  admit  that  it  is  a  valid  objec- 
tion to  the  book  of  Daniel  that  the  author  calls  Nebu- 
chadnezzar the  king  of  Babylon  before  the  decease  of 
his  father  Nabopolassar.  If,  however,  any  one  of  these 
assumptions  be  false,  the  critics  must  admit  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar may  have  been  called  king  before  he  actu- 


88  The  Book  of  Daniel 

ally  ascended  the  throne,  either  proleptically,  or  for 
distinction  or  honor,  or  in  some  sense  different  from 
that  in  which  he  was  king  after  the  decease  of  his 
father. 

Accordingly,  we  shall  attempt  to  show  the  invalidity 
of  these  assumptions,  following  the  order  given  above. 

I.  (i)  First,  then,  it  is  assumed,  that  it  is  a  mistake 
of  Daniel  to  have  called  Nebuchadnezzar  "king  of 
Babylon"  when  referring  to  an  act  which  he  performed 
before  he  had  actually  become  king.  We  might  dis- 
miss the  objection  as  puerile,  were  it  not  apparently 
made  in  all  seriousness.  Talcing  the  matter  up  seri- 
ously, then,  let  us  ask  the  question  what  would  an 
author  of  the  Book  of  Daniel  writing  in  535  B.  c,  or 
thereabout,  have  desired  his  readers  to  understand  with 
regard  to  the  man  who  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim 
led  the  expedition  against  Jerusalem.  Obviously,  only 
so  much  as  he  deemed  necessary  to  the  reader's  under- 
standing of  the  story  of  Daniel  and  his  three  com.pan- 
ions,  which  it  was  his  purpose  to  relate.  He  attains  this 
end  by  telling  us  that  this  man  besieged  Jerusalem  and 
secured,  perhaps  in  order  to  insure  his  departure  without 
x^apturing  the  city,  a  number  of  captives  of  the  better 
sort,  probably  as  hostages;  and,  as  a  ransom,  a  part 
of  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord.  Captives  and 
vessels  were  both  brought  to  Babylon,  the  former 
to  serve  as  eunuchs  in  the  palace,  the  latter  to  be  used 
in  the  service  of  the  gods. 

Notice,  that  all  of  these  preliminary  statements  are 
necessary  to  an  understanding  of  the  story  that  follows. 
They  introduce  us  to  the  dramatis  personcB  of  the  story. 
Now,  it  is  certain,  that  the  tale  of  dramatis  personce 
would  not  be  complete  if  the  author  omitted  the  name 
of  the  hero  or  villain,  who  was  none  other  than  Nebu- 


Use  of  the  Word  **King"  89 

chadnezzar,  the  King  of  Babylon.  It  is  not  Nebuchad- 
nezzar, the  man,  nor  the  general,  nor  the  son  of  the 
king  of  Babylon,  nor  the  crown  prince,  that  is  the 
principal  personage  of  the  book,  but  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  king,  the  king  of  great  Babylon  which  he  boasted 
to  have  built, — the  king,  proud,  haughty,  defiant,  put- 
ting his  claims  before  those  of  God  and  oppressing 
his  true  worshipers.  Now,  the  writer  might  have 
said,  to  be  sure,  that  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  while  acting  as  general  for  his  father 
Nabopolassar,  came  up  against  Jerusalem  and  besieged 
it  and  was  given  hostages  and  a  ransom  to  induce  him  to 
depart  without  capturing  the  city;  that  he  did  thus 
depart,  having  been  informed  about  that  time  that  his 
father  was  dead  and  that  he  had  in  consequence  become 
king  of  Babylon  de  jure;  that  he  returned  to  Babylon 
to  assert  his  claims  to  be  king  de  facto,  bringing,  or 
causing  to  be  brought  with  him  the  hostages  and  vessels 
he  had  taken;  and  that  he,  as  king,  put  the  hostages  in 
his  palace  and  the  vessels  in  his  temple.  This  would 
have  been  explicit  and  detailed  as  to  the  acts  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar; but  will  anyone  say  that  it  is  more  illumin- 
ating as  to  who  he  was?  Writing  seventy  years  after 
the  expedition  recorded  in  Daniel  i,  i,  and  twenty-five 
years  after  the  death  of  the  general  in  command  of  the 
expedition,  the  author  would  naturally  suppose  that  his 
readers  would  know  whom  he  meant  when  he  calls  him 
Nebuchadnezzar,  the  king  of  Babylon.  Just  as,  to 
quote  Sir  Robert  Anderson,^  the  newspapers  at  the 
time  of  the  unveiling  of  the  statue  of  Queen  Victoria 
at  Kensington  Gardens,  spoke  of  the  Queen's  having 
once  lived  in  Kensington  Palace;  whereas  she  lived 
there  only  before  she  became  Queen.     So  we  have  lives 

^  Daniel  in  the  Critics  Den,  p.  20. 


90  The  Book  of  Daniel 

of  the  Emperor  Augustus,  or  of  the  Empress  Catherine 
of  Russia,  or  of  President  Grant,  beginning  in  each  case 
with  an  account  of  what  they  were  and  of  what  they  did 
before  they  attained  the  highest  titles  by  which  they 
are  now  known. 

(2)  It  is  assumed,  that  the  phrase  ''king  of  X"  can 
be  used  only  of  a  man  who  was  de  facto  king,  when  some 
deed  said  to  have  been  done  by  him  or  to  him  was 
accomplished.  But  who  can  see  any  impropriety  in 
the  phrase  "Jesse  begat  David  the  king"  in  Mat- 
thew i,  6?  Everyone  knows  it  means  ''David  who 
afterwards  became  king."  Or  who  would  pronounce 
it  a  mistake  in  2  Kings  xxv,  2y,  when  it  is  said 
that  Evil-Merodach  "did  lift  up  the  head  of  Jehoiachin 
king  of  Judah ' '  ?  Obviously,  it  means  ' '  Jehoiachin  who 
thirty-seven  years  before  had  been  king  of  Judah." 
So,  if  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel  composed  his 
book  about  535  B.  c,  he  may  very  well  have  called 
Nebuchadnezzar  "king  of  Babylon"  when  referring 
to  a  time  before  he  had  become  king,  meaning  "that 
Nebuchadnezzar  who  some  time  after  became  king 
of  Babylon,"  or  "whom  you,  my  readers,  know  as 
having  been  king  of  Babylon." 

II.  It  is  assumed  that  the  phrase  may  not  have  been 
used  simply  for  the  sake  of  distinction  or  honor.  But 
(i)  as  a  title  of  distinction  the  phrase  "the  king"  is 
used  in  Matthew  i,  6,  to  distinguish  the  particular  David 
meant.  In  Daniel  i,  2,  Jehoiakim  is  called  "king  of 
Judah"  to  show  clearly  the  particular  Jehoiakim  that 
was  meant.  So,  also,  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called,  or 
may  be  called  "king  of  Babylon"  in  Daniel  i,  i,  to  dis- 
tinguish him  from  any  other  possible  Nebuchadnezzar. 
In  the  second  century  b.  c.  everyone  in  Palestine  may 
well  have  known  but  one  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  title 


Use  of  the  Word  **King''  91 

would  scarcely  have  been  necessary.  But  at  Babylon 
in  the  sixth  century  B.  c,  there  may  have  been  many 
Nebuchadnezzars.  Certainly,  in  the  seventh  century 
there  were  two  Nebuchadnezzars.'  Besides,  a  son  of 
Nabunaid  was  almost  certainly  so  called;  for  if  not, 
why  did  the  two  usurpers,  the  rebels  against  Darius 
Hystaspis  mentioned  on  the  Behistun  Inscription, 
assume  that  name?^ 

(2)  The  word  **king"  may  have  been  used  to  denote 
the  son  of  the  king.  It  is  so  used  in  the  Arabic  of  the 
Arabian  Nights  in  the  story  of  Taj-el-Molouk,  where  the 
prince  is  twice  called  "a  king,  the  son  of  a  king,"  al- 
though his  father  Suleiman  was  still  reigning.  ^  In  like 
manner  ** queen"  is  frequently  used  to  denote  the  un- 
married daughter  of  a  king,  although  she  was  not  reign- 
ing; just  as  in  England  they  would  say  '*the  Princess 
Victoria.  "4  Antiochus  Soter,  calls  himself  ''king  of  the 
lands,"  Seleucus  his  son  "king"  and  Stratonike  his 
wife  **  queen.  "5  In  Greek,  also,  the  word  for  king  is 
used  of  the  son  of  the  king  or  of  anyone  sharing  in  the 
government.  ^ 

(3)  The  word  ''king"  may  also  have  been  used  to 
denote  the  father  of  a  king,  although  this  father  may 
never  have  actually  reigned.  How  else  can  we  account 
for  the  fact,  that  Nergal-shar-usur  on  the  Cylinder 
inscription  at  Cambridge  calls  his  father  Bel-shum- 
ishkun   **king  of  Babylon,  "^  whereas  on  the  Ripley 

»  Johns,  Assyrian  Deeds  and  Documents,  lii,  230. 

2  There  are  several  tablets  from  Babylon  assigned  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar III  v/ho  claimed  to  be  the  son  of  Nabunaid.  See  Peiser  in  KB 
iv,  298-303.  3  Lane,  ii,  336. 

<  Compare  the  use  of  "queen"  in  the  Arabian  Nights  stories  of 
Badoura  and  Marouf,  Lane,  ii,  542. 

s  Weissbach,  Die  Keilinschrifien  der  Achcememden^  p.  135. 

<•  Od.,  iii,  394;  viii,  290;  Xen.,  CEc,  iv,  16.  f  KB  iii,  72. 


92  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Cylinder,  he  calls  his  father  simply  **the  wise  prince,  the 
perfect  lord,  guardian  (keeper)  of  the  guards,  or  watch 
towers,  of  E-sag-il  and  Babylon."'  Of  course,  Bel- 
shum-ishkun  may  have  been  a  sub-king  of  Babylon 
under  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  Evil-Merodach,  or  even 
under  his  own  son  Nergal-shar-usur.  Or  the  title 
**king**  applied  to  him  may  have  been  simply  an 
honorific  title  of  respect.  In  either  case,  it  illustrates 
the  fact  that  the  title  **king"  was  not  confined  to  the 
reigning  monarch,  to  the  king  of  kings;  and  thus, 
the  use  of  the  title  as  applied  to  Nebuchadnezzar  in 
Daniel  i,  I,  to  Belshazzar  in  Daniel  vii,  i,  and  to 
Darius  in  Daniel  ix,  I,  is  fully  justified  by  analogy. 

It  is  possible,  too,  that  Darius  in  the  Behistun  Inscrip- 
tion uses  the  word  king  in  this  broader  sense  of  his  father 
Hystaspis,  and  of  other  ancestors  (Col.  i,  8) ;  for  in  the 
other  places  where  Hystaspis  is  mentioned  he  is  called 
simply  the  father  of  Darius,  "^ — or  merely  Hystaspis  with- 
out any  further  designation.  ^  Moreover,  Herodotus 
speaks  of  Hystaspis  as  having  been  in  the  time  of 
Smerdis  the  Magian  simply  the  hyparch,  or  governor, 
of  Persia.'* 

III.  Finally,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  Hebrew 
melek  and  the  Aramaic  malka,  the  words  uniformly 
translated  by  '*king"  in  the  English  versions,  by  rex 
in  the  Latin  Vulgate,  by  hasileus  in  Greek,  and  by 
corresponding  words  in  the  modem  European  versions 
of  the  Scriptures,  are  almost  certain  to  be  misunder- 
stood by  us,  because  of  the  arbitrary  manner  in  which 
we  have  fixed  their  connotation.  When  we  think  of  a 
king,  there  comes  up  before  us  the  image  of  King 

»  KB,  iii,  ii,  76,  Col.  i,  1.  11-13.  "Rubu  emga  idlum  gitmalum  nasir 
tnassartim  E-sag-il  u  BaHlu*  "  Co  i,  2,  4;  ii,  93  et  al. 

»  So  ii,  94;  iii,  2,  3,  4,  7  et  al.  -«  Book  III,  70 


Use  of  the  Word  ''  King  "  93 

Edward,  or  King  Alfred,  of  Henry  the  Fourth,  or 
Louis  XIV  of  France,  of  Alexander  of  Macedon,  or 
Rameses  king  of  the  Egyptians.  Or  we  think  of  the 
king  of  Greece,  or  Denmark,  or  Portugal,  in  modern 
times,  or  of  the  kings  of  Israel,  Judah,  and  Moab 
in  ancient  times.  That  is,  we  think  of  a  ruler  of  an 
independent  people,  or  country.  Where  we  have 
subject  peoples,  or  subordinate  coimtries,  we  usually 
call  the  supreme  ruler  emperor.  Or  we  call  him  Kaiser 
as  in  Germany,  the  kings  of  Saxony,  Bavaria,  and 
Wurttemberg  being  second  in  authority  to  him.  Some- 
times the  same  man  is  emperor  and  king  at  the  same 
time,  as  in  the  cases  of  George  V,  king  of  England  and 
emperor  of  India;  or  William  II,  king  of  Prussia  and 
German  Kaiser.  As  emperor  of  India,  King  George  has 
many  subject  and  allied  rajahs  or  kings,  of  whom  he 
may  be  called  the  king  of  kings,  or  the  lord  paramount. 
As  German  Kaiser,  William  II  has  associated  with 
him  kings,  grand  dukes,  dukes,  princes,  and  lesser 
potentates. 

Now,  among  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans,  and 
among  most  of  the  Semitic  races,  there  was  in  each  case 
but  a  single  term  which  might  be  employed  indiscrimi- 
nately to  denote  the  ruler  of  a  city,  of  a  kingdom,  or  of 
an  empire.  In  Greek  the  word  basileus  was  employed 
to  denote  the  ruler  of  a  city  such  as  the  kings  of  Sparta, 
Argos,  and  other  cities;  of  countries,  great  or  small, 
such  as  Macedon,  and  Cilicia,  and  Lydia,  and  Media, 
and  Egypt;  or  of  the  great  empires  of  Esarhaddon, 
Nebuchadnezzar,  Cyrus,  Darius,  and  Alexander.  Thus 
Adrastus  was  king  of  the  city  of  Sicyon;'  Syennesis 
was  king  of  the  subject-state  of  Cilicia,^  and  Darius 
was  the  king  of  the  empire  of  Persia.  ^    In  Latin,  Rom- 

*  Herod.,  v,  67,  'Xen.,  Anah.,  i,  2,  J  Id.,  I,  i. 


94  The  Book  of  Daniel 

ulus  was  king  {rex)  of  the  city  of  Rome;'  Herod  was 
subject-king  of  Judea;^  and  Pacorus  was  king  of  the 
independent  empire  of  Persia.^  In  Hebrew,  the  word 
melek  was  used  to  denote  the  ruler  of  a  city,  as  in 
Joshua  xii,  9-24,  where  thirty-one  kings  of  cities  are 
mentioned ;  or  of  a  small  country,  such  as  the  kings  of 
Aram,  Judah,  and  Israel;  or  of  the  kings  of  kings,  such 
as  Esarhaddon,  Nebuchadnezzar,  Cyrus,  and  Darius. 
In  Arabic,  a  malik,  or  king,  ruled  over  a  single  city,  ^ 
or  over  a  province,  or  over  an  empire.  ^ 

In  Aramaic,  the  malka  ruled  over  a  city,*  or  a 
small  country,  as  the  kings  of  Samal^  or  a  subject 
nation,  as  the  king  of  Urha;^  or  an  empire,  as  the 
rulers  of  the  Greek  Empire  and  of  Persia.^  Finally, 
in  Assyrian,  the  word  for  king  was  used  to  denote 
the  kings  of  cities,  as  ' '  Luli  king  of  the  city  of  Sidon  " ; '° 
the  kings  of  subject  provinces,  as  in  the  long  list  of 
subject  kings,  governors,  and  prefects,  of  the  land 
of  Egypt  in  the  Rassam  Cylinder  of  Ashurbanipal ; " 
and  the  king  of  kings,  as  in  the  oft-recurring 
phrase  *'so  and  so,  king  of  nations,  king  of  Assyria, 
etc." 

From  the  above,  it  will  be  seen  that  a  "king"  might 

^  Livy,  Bk.  I.  =«  Tacitus,  History,  v,  9.  ^Id. 

4  E.  g.,  there  was  a  king  of  the  city  of  Balsora  while  Haroun  Al  Rashid 
was  sultan  of  Bagdad.  See  the  Arabian  Nights  in  Lane's  translation,  i, 
254.  Compare  also  the  story  of  the  Second  Royal  Mendicant,  id.,  i, 
73,  and  the  story  of  Marouf,  id.,  ii,  537. 

s  For  examples  of  the  last  two  uses  see  Ibn  Hisham's  Life  of  Mu- 
hammed,  vol.  ii,  p.  971,  where  the  Kaiser  at  Constantinople  is  called 
King  of  the  Romans,  and  the  Mukaukas  king  of  Alexandria  (i.  e., 
Egypt),  the  latter  being  a  province  of  the  Graeco-Roman  empire. 

^  Aramaic  Targum  and  Syriac  versions  of  Joshua  xii. 

7  Sendshirli  Inscriptions.  ^  Addai  the  Apostle. 

9  Joshua  the  Stylite,  passim,  and  the  Egyptian  Papyri. 

"  KB  ii,  90.  "  Id.  ii,  160-162. 


Use  of  the  Word  ''  King ''  95 

rule  over  any  extent  of  territory  from  a  single  city  to 
an  empire. 

Conclusion 

The  above  discussion  has,  we  think,  made  it  clear 
that  a  man  who  was  not  actually  reigning  at  the  time 
to  which  some  event  in  his  life  is  afterwards  referred 
might  rightly  be  called  king  by  a  writer  who  was  de- 
scribing that  event  after  the  man  had  really  been  clothed 
with  the  royal  dignity.  It  has  shown,  also,  that  a  man 
who  was  never  king  in  the  sense  of  having  himself 
reigned  de  facto,  or  dejure,  might  be  called  king  by  way 
of  distinction  or  honor,  because  he  was  in  some  way 
related  to  the  reigning  king.  Lastly,  it  has  shown  that 
the  word  used  for  king  by  the  ancient  writers  is  to  be 
defined  not  by  the  modem  usus  loguendi,  nor  by  the 
conception  which  one  may  have  formed  from  present- 
day  usage,  but  in  harmony  with  the  manner  in  which 
the  word  was  employed  in  antiquity  and  in  the  par- 
ticular language  to  which  the  term,  by  us  translated 
*'king,  *'  belonged.  Judged  by  these  three  rules  there  is 
no  good  reason  why  the  author  of  Daniel  may  not 
properly  and  justly  have  called  Nebuchadnezzar  **the 
king  of  Babylon, "  when  referring  to  an  event  in  his  life 
that  happened  before  he  had  actually  ascended  the 
throne  of  his  father. 


CHAPTER  VI 

BELSHAZZAR 

One  of  the  commonest  tricks  of  argument  is  the  one 
which  is  called  the  begging  of  the  question  at  issue. 
This  is  usually  done  by  an  abrupt  categorical  statement 
that  a  thing  is  so,  as  if  it  admitted  of  no  contradiction 
and  required  no  proof.  It  is  frequently  employed 
in  political  and  religious  controversy.  **He  casteth 
out  devils  by  Beelzebub  the  prince  of  the  devils,"  is 
a  good  example  of  this  kind  of  fallacy.  The  Jewish 
enemies  of  Jesus  simply  assumed  the  whole  question 
at  issue  without  giving  evidence  to  support  their 
assumption.  Their  statement  was  at  best  their  opin- 
ion.    They  had  no  evidence  to  support  it. 

Another  example  of  this  kind  of  fallacy  is  the  asser- 
tion of  Wellhausen  in  his  History  of  Israel,  p.  387,  that 
l^l'^  [kdvash]  and  m^  [radd]  are  Aramaisms. ' 

» Whereas  ^at>a5A  is  found  in  all  branches  of  the  Semitic  family  of 
languages  and  in  all  stages  of  Hebrew  literature:  and  rddd  in  the  sense 
of  "rw/e"  is  found  in  Hebrew  of  all  ages  and  in  Babylonian  as  early 
as  Hammurabi,  but  not  in  Syriac  nor  in  any  other  Aramaic  dialect  ex- 
cept Mandaic  and  in  the  translations  of,  and  comments  on,  the  origi- 
nal Hebrew  rddd  as  found  in  Gen.  i,  26,  28 ;  Ps.  ex,  2,  and  Lev.  xxvi, 
17.  See  M.  Jastrow,  A  Dictionary  of  the  Targumim,  etc.,  p.  1451b; 
Lewy,  Chalddisches  Worterbuch  I,  352a,  II  408b;  Delitzsch,  Assyrisches 
Worterbuch,  p.  314,  613;  Lane,  Arabic- English  Lexicon,  2588;  Bred- 
erik,  Konkordanz  zum  Tar  gum  Oukelos,  no,  183;  Norberg,  Lexidion 
Cod.  Nas.;  Harper,  Code  of  Hammurabi,  and  the  Hebrew  concordances 
and  dictionaries. 

96 


Belshazzar  97 

Closely  allied  to  this  fallacy  is  that  involved  in  an 
assertion  implying  that  there  is  plenty  of  evidence  at 
hand  to  prove  your  side  of  a  question,  if  you  only  cared 
to  produce  it.  Thus  when  the  Jews  brought  Jesus 
before  Pilate,  he  asked  them,  **What  accusation  bring 
ye  against  this  man?"  Their  answer  was:  **If  he  was 
not  a  malefactor,  we  would  not  have  delivered  him  up 
unto  you."  Having  no  evidence  that  wotdd  convict 
him  before  a  Roman  judge,  they  were  condemning  him 
by  innuendo,  by  the  mere  assertion  of  his  guilt;  while 
at  the  same  time  they  were  implying  that  they  had 
such  an  abundance  of  proof,  and  that  the  proof  was  so 
well  known  by  all,  that  it  was  not  reasonable  in  Pilate 
even  to  demand  that  they  specify  the  charge  against 
him.  Whereas  the  fact  was  that  they  could  not  for- 
mulate and  substantiate  an  accusation  that  would 
compass  the  purpose  which  they  desired. 

A  still  more  insidious  fallacy  is  that  which  seeks  to 
gain  the  point  at  issue  by  obscuring  the  real  point  of  the 
question.  Thus,  when  Jesus  was  brought  before  Pilate 
the  second  time,  the  Jews  made  the  accusation  that 
Jesus  perverted  the  nation  by  saying  that  he  was 
' '  Christ  a  king. "  But  when  Pilate  asked  Jesus  if  he  was 
then  **the  king  of  the  Jews,"  he  answered,  *'My  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world, "  etc.  And  Pilate  gave  judg- 
ment: "I  find  no  fault  in  this  man. "  Pilate  was  sharp 
enough  to  see  that  a  man  whose  kingdom  was  not  of  this 
world,  whose  servants  would  not  fight,  and  whose 
mission  it  was  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth,  might  be 
called  a  *'king"  without  endangering  the  Roman  state. 
The  charge  was  false,  because  he  had  not  claimed  to  be  a 
,^king  in  the  sense  implied  in  the  accusation.  There  was 
abundance  of  evidence  to  prove  that  he  had  claimed  to 
be  a  king.    Jesus  admitted  that  he  had  said  he  was  a 


98  The  Book  of  Daniel 

king.  He  denied,  however,  that  he  had  meant  that  he 
was  a  king  in  the  sense  implied  in  the  accusation  against 
him.  Pilate  admitted  the  justice  of  his  denial,  and 
Jesus  was  declared  not  guilty  of  the  charge  of  unfriendli- 
ness to  Cassar.     For  there  are  kings  and  kings. 

A  fourth  fallacy,  lies  in  the  assumption  that  a  state- 
ment is  false  because  there  is  no  convincing  evidence  that 
it  is  true.  Thus  Hitzig,  writing  in  1863^  maintained 
that  stringed  instruments  could  not  have  been  used  by 
Deborah.  So,  also,  Herodotus^  thought  that  the  report 
of  the  Phenician  mariners  whom  Pharaoh- Necho  had 
sent  to  sail  around  Africa,  starting  from  the  Red  Sea 
and  returning  by  the  Straits  of  Gibraltar,  was  false, 
because  they  said  that  they  "had  the  sun  on  their  right 
hand"  as  they  sailed  around.  So,  Ewald  thought  that 
the  records  of  Ezra  and  Chronicles  were  false  because 
they  use  the  title  **king  of  Persia"  of  the  Achaemenid 
kings  before  the  Persian  empire  had  passed  away; 
whereas  to-day  we  know  nineteen  different  extra-bibli- 
cal authors  from  the  Achaemenid  period  who  in  twenty 
separate  works  give  thirty-eight  instances  of  the  use  of 
this  title.  ^ 

In  the  objections  made  to  the  biblical  accounts  of 
Belshazzar,  are  to  be  found  examples  of  all  these  kinds 
of  fallacy.  Of  the  first  one  the  statements  that 
**Nabunaid  was  the  last  king  of  Babylon"  and  that 
Belshazzar  "was  not  styled  king  by  his  contempora- 
ries." Of  the  second,  that  to  represent  Belshazzar 
as  the  king  under  whom  Babylon  was  captured  and  as 

^Die  Psalmm,  p.  xiii.  *Bk.  IV,  42. 

3  See  articles  by  the  author  on  Royal  Titles  in  Antiquity  in  The 
Princeton  Theological  Review,  1904-5,  a  contribution  on  the  Titles  of 
the  Persian  Kings  in  the  Festschrift  Eduard  Sachau,  Berlin,  19 15,  and 
an  article  in  the  PTR  for  January,  19 17,  on  The  Title  "King  of 
Persia"  in  the  Old  Testament, 


Belshazzar  99 

having  been  **a  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,'*  contradicts 
all  the  other  assured  witnesses  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Of  the  third,  that ' '  Belshazzar  never  became  king  in  his 
father's  place."  Of  the  fourth,  that  Belshazzar  was 
never  king  of  Babylon  at  all. 

It  is  my  purpose  in  this  chapter  to  make  it  clear  that 
there  are  no  tenable  objections  to  the  statements  of  the 
book  of  Daniel,  that  Belshazzar  was  a  king,  that  he  was 
king  of  Babylon  and  of  the  Chaldeans,  that  he  was  king 
for  three  years,  that  he  was  the  last  king  of  Babylon 
before  the  Persian  domination,  and  that  he  was  a  son 
of  Nebuchadnezzar.  This  latter  will  involve  a  full 
discussion  of  the  possible  uses  of  the  words  '*son"  and 
''father,"  and  of  the  possibility  of  the  existence  of  two 
kings  of  a  country  at  the  same  time,  of  the  different 
ideas  connoted  by  the  phrase  "king  of  Babylon, "  of  the 
difference  between  the  phrases  "king  of  Babylon"  and 
"king  of  the  Chaldeans, "  and  of  the  twofold  datings  of 
reigns. 

Proceeding  in  the  usual  order  we  will  state  first  the 
objection  to  Daniel's  statements  with  regard  to  Bel- 
shazzar and  the  assumptions  involved  in  them.  They 
are  as  follows: 

Objections  Stated 

1 .  "  To'represent  that  the  king  in  whose  reign  Babylon 
was  captured  and  the  Chaldean  empire  destroyed  was 
named  Belshazzar  and  that  he  was  a  son  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar (Ch.  V),  is  to  contradict  all  the  other  assured  wit- 
nesses of  the  Old  Testament."' 

2.  "Belshazzar  is  represented  as  *  king  of  Babylon.' " 
*'In  point  of  fact  Nabunaid  was  the  last  king  of  Babylon." 

'  Comill,  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  p, 
384. 


100  The  Book  of  Daniel 

"Belshazzar  may  have  distinguished  himself,  perhaps  more 
than  his  father  Nabunaid  (Nabonidus),  at  the  time  when 
Babylon  passed  into  the  power  of  the  Persians;  and  hence, 
in  the  recollections  of  a  later  age  he  may  have  been  pictured, 
as  its  last  king;  but  he  was  not  styled  *king'  by  his  contem- 
poraries {cf.  Schrader  on  Dan.  v,  i,  2).*'' 

3.  "Belshazzar  never  became  king  in  his  father*s 
place/'^ 

Assumptions  Involved 

These  objections  resolve  themselves  into  four  assump- 
tions: first,  that  the  Scriptures  mention  elsewhere  the 
king  under  whom  Babylon  fell;  second,  that  Nabunaid 
was  the  last  king  of  Babylon;  third,  that  Belshazzar  was 
never  king  of  Babylon  in  his  father's  place;  and  fourth, 
that  he  was  not  called  "king"  by  his  contemporaries. 

Answer  to  Assumptions 

I.  As  the  Scriptures  nowhere  else  mention  the  name 
of  the  king  who  ruled  over  Babylon  when  the  city  was 
captured  by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  Comiirs  objection, 
as  stated,  is. absolutely  without  foundation  in  fact.  If 
he  means  that  the  Scriptures  elsewhere  call  a  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  by  the  name  Evil-Merodach,  it  does 
not  follow  from  this  that  Nebuchadnezzar  may  not 
have  had  another  son  called  Belshazzar.^  We  know 
from  the  Babylonian  documents  that  he  had  at  least 
three  sons  beside  Evil-Merodach.  ^  Why  may  he  not 
have  had  a  fifth? 

»  Driver,  LOT,  pp.  498,  499. 

=»  Sayce,  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  p.  125. 
3  See  on  the  word  "son"  below,  p.  117. 

4 To  wit:  Marduk-nadin-ahe,  Nk.  382.5,  Musheshib-Marduk,  Nk. 
381^  {?),  and  Marduk-shum-usur,  Nk.  372.2,  393.2. 


Bclsha^zaf      - '   '• '  •  ''^  - ' • '  i'oi 

II.  It  must  be  admitted  that  Nabunaid  was  the  last 
de  jure  king  of  the  Babylonian  empire  whose  capital 
was  the  city  of  Babylon;  but  this  does  not  prove 
that  he  was  the  last  de  facto  king  of  the  Babylonians  in 
the  city  or  citadel  of  Babylon,  nor  even  the  last  de  jure 
king  of  the  same.  To  prove,  however,  that  the  author 
of  the  book  of  Daniel  is  wrong  in  calling  Belshazzar 
the  last  Chaldean  king  of  Babylon,  it  must  be  shown 
that  no  one  of  that  name,  nor  with  that  title,  can  have 
ruled  in  the  city  of  Babylon  during  or  after  the  downfall 
of  Nabunaid. 

A.  As  to  the  name  and  titles  of  Belshazzar,  the 
moniunents  of  the  Babylonians  tell  us  as  follows: 

1.  That  there  was  a  Bel-shar-usur. ^ 

2.  That  he  was  the  son  of  Nabunaid. ' 

3.  That  he  was  **the  first  bom  son'*  of  Nabunaid, 
the  '*son  of  the  king"  par  excellence,^  Nabunaid  ex- 
pressly calls  Belshazzar  his  first  bom  son  (maru  reshtu)  ^ 
just  as  Nebuchadnezzar  calls  himself  the  maru  reshtu 
of  Nabopolassar.  ^ 

4.  That  he  commanded  the  armies  of  the  king  of 
Babylon  in  the  province  of  Accad,  certainly  from  the 
7th  to  the  1 2th  year  of  Nabunaid  and,  for  all  that  we 

» In  Nabunald's  prayer  to  Sin,  the  moon  god,  we  learn  that  his  first 
bom  son  was  Bel-shar-usur.     (KB  iii,  ii,  96.) 

"  On  certain  tablets  from  the  city  of  Babylon,  a  "Bel-shar-usur  the 
son  of  the  king  "  is  mentioned.  These  tablets  are  found  in  Strassmaier's 
edition  of  the  inscriptions  of  Nabunaid  numbered  as  follows:  50,  i;  13, 
year  i,  month  12,  day  26:  184,  i ;  4,  year  5,  month  i,  day  25;  270,  lines 
4,  6,  9,  21,  year  7,  month  11,  day  9;  581,  lines  e,  3,  8,  year  11,  month  ?, 
day  20;  688,  line  3,  year  12,  month  12b,  day  27. 

3  In  other  places  Belshazzar  is  apparently  called  simply  the  "son  of 
the  king,"  e.g.,  Inscriptions  of  Nabonidus,  581.  4,  331.  4,  387,  401,  50.  6. 
In  numbers  50  and  581,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  "son  of  the  king" 
must  be  Belshazzar,  since  he  is  expressly  so  called  in  these  tablets; 
see  note  2  above.        <  VAB,  IV,  246.  26,  252.  24.         ^Id.,  72,  41. 


162  '-"^^'^      The  Bdok  of  Daniel 

know  to  the  contrary,  during  the  whole  reign  of  Nabu- 
naid;*  and  that  in  certain  kingly  functions  he  is  asso- 
ciated with  his  father  as  early  as  the  1 2  th  year  of 
the  reign  of  Nabunaid.  * 

5.  That  between  the  i6th  day  of  the  4th  month  of 
the  17th  year  of  Nabunaid  and  the  nth  day  of  the  8th 
month,  the  son  of  the  king  was  in  command  of  the 
Babylonians  in  the  citadel  of  Babylon  and  was  the  de 
facto  king  of  Babylon,  inasmuch  as  Nabunaid  had  been 
captured.  ^ 

»  In  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle^  Obv.,  ii,  5,  it  is  said  that  in  the 
7th  year  of  king  Nabunaid  "the  son  of  the  king  with  his  princes  and 
troops  was  in  the  land  of  Accad."  A  like  statement  is  made  for  the 
9th,  loth,  and  nth  years,  id.,  10,  19,  23. 

'  In  the  tablet  published  by  Pinches  in  the  Expository  Times  for  1915, 
an  oath  was  sworn  in  the  name  of  Belshazzar  along  with  his  father. 
Oaths  were  never  sworn  by  the  names  of  any  men  except  kings.  This 
tablet  is  from  the  12th  year  of  Nabunaid.  The  tablet  reads  as  fol- 
lows: "  Ishi-Amurru,  son  of  Nuranu,  has  sworn  by  Bel,  Nebo,  the  lady 
of  Erech,  and  Nana,  the  oath  of  Nabonidus,  king  of  Babylon,  and 
Belshazzar,  the  king's  son,  that,  on  the  7th  day  of  the  month  Adar  of 
the  twelfth  year  of  Nabonadus,  king  of  Babylon,  I  will  go  to  Erech 
etc." 

As  Dr.  Pinches  remarks:  "The  importance  of  this  inscription  is  that 
it  places  Belshazzar  practically  on  the  same  plane  as  Nabonidus, 
his  father,  five  years  before  the  latter's  deposition,  and  the  bearing  of 
this  will  not  be  overlooked.  Officially,  Belshazzar  had  not  been  recog- 
nized as  king,  as  this  would  have  necessitated  his  father's  abdication, 
but  it  seems  clear  that  he  was  in  some  way  associated  with  him  on  the 
throne,  otherwise  his  name  would  hardly  have  been  introduced  into 
the  oath  with  which  the  inscription  begins.  We  now  see  that  not  only 
for  the  Hebrews,  but  also  for  the  Babylonians,  Belshazzar  held  a  practi- 
cally royal  position.  The  conjecture  as  to  Daniel's  being  made  the 
third  ruler  in  the  kingdom  because  Nabonidus  and  Belshazzar  were  the 
first  and  second  is  thus  confirmed,  and  the  mention  of  Belshazzar's  third 
year  in  Dan.  viii,  i  is  explained."  (See,  also,  the  original  text  and  trans- 
lation of  this  tablet  in  an  article  by  Dr.  Pinches  in  PSBA  for  Jan., 
1916,  pp.  27-29.) 

3  In  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle  Rev.  A.  15-22,  it  is  said  that 
Ugbaru  (Gobryas)  governor  (pihu)  of  the  land  of  Gutium  and  the  troops 


Belshazzar  103 

6.  That  if  we  accept  the  most  probable  rendering 
of  the  signs  in  the  Nabunaid-Cynis  Chronicle,  ii,  23, 
this  son  of  the  king  was  killed  on  the  night  when  the 
citadel  of  Babylon  was  taken  by  the  troops  of  Cyrus 
under  Gobryas. 

From  these  statements  of  the  monimients,  it  is  clear 
that  there  was  a  Bel-shar-usur,  the  first-bom  son  of 
Nabunaid,  who  almost  certainly  commanded  the  armies 
of  Babylon  for  many  years  and  was  in  command  of  the 
citadel  of  Babylon  and  hence  de  facto  king  for  four 
months  after  the  capture  of  his  father  Nabunaid,  and 
that  the  same  de  facto  king  was  probably  the  son  of  the 
king,  who  was  slain  by  Gobryas  on  the  night  that  the 
citadel  was  taken.  That  he  might  properly  have  been 
called  king  has  been  shown  above. ' 

B.  Here,  several  further  questions  must  be  dis- 
cussed. 

1.  Was  the  Bel-shar-usur  of  the  inscriptions  the 
same  as  the  Belshazzar  of  Daniel?  We  need  not  pause 
to  discuss  this.  For  it  is  admitted  by  all  that  despite 
the  difference  in  spelling  the  same  person  is  referred  to 
in  both.=* 

2.  Is  the  spelling  "iS'Stt^^s  Belshassar  an  indication 

of  a  date  as  early  as  the  6th  century,  or  of  a  date  as 
late  as  the  2nd  century  B.C.?  There  are  four  points 
to  be  considered  here. 

(i)  The  vowels.  As  the  vowel  signs  were  not  added 
to  the  Hebrew  consonants  till  some  centuries  after 
Christ,  and  as  no  vowels  for  the  proper  names  in  Daniel 

of  Cyrus  entered  Babylon  without  a  battle.  Afterwards  Nabunaid, 
having  been  shut  up,  was  taken  in  Babylon.  Cyrus  entered  Babylon  on 
the  3rd  day  of  the  8th  month  and  Gobryas  was  made  governor  of  it 
on  the  nth  of  the  same  month. 

» Chapter  V,  «  KAT,  2nd  edition,  p.  433;  3rd  edition,  p.  396, 


104  The  Book  of  Daniel 

can  be  traced  farther  back  than  the  LXX  version,  no 
argument  as  to  date  can  be  based  on  the  disagreement 
of  the  vowels  in  the  name  Belshazzar  with  the  vowels  of 
the  name  as  found  in  Babylonian.  One  point  only  is  to 
be  noted,  namely  that  it  was  not  customary  to  denote 
the  first  syllable  (u)  of  usur  in  the  Aramaic  translit- 
eration. ' 

(2)  The  double  s  (Eng.  2).  This  goes  back  only  as 
far  as  the  pointings  of  the  earliest  Hebrew  manuscripts, 
the  Greek  versions  and  Josephus  writing  but  one  letter 
for  the  two  indicated  by  the  present  Massoretic  text. 

(3)  Bl  is  the  common  Aramaic  and  Hebrew  trans- 
literation of  the  Babylonian  Bel.^ 

(4)  The  transliteration  of  the  sh  by  sh,  instead  of  s 
(samekh)  causes  some  difficulty.  Wliile  shar  is  com- 
monly rendered  in  Aramaic  by  sar^^  as  also,  at  times, 
in  the  Old  Testament  Hebrew ;  yet  ^  sometimes  we  find 
Assyrian  shar  represented  in  Hebrew  by  shar.  ^ 

(5)  The  dropping  or  assimilation  of  the  r  from  the 
end  of  shar.  The  only  example  of  this  assimilation  to  be 
found  in  the  inscriptions  is  on  a  seal  from  the  seventh 
century  B.  C.  ^  where  the  name  Sassar-il  probably  stands 
for  Sar-sare-il.  In  Daniel  we  have  the  same  assimila- 
tion also  in  the  name  Belteshazzar,  if  we  take  the  last 
two  syllables  as  standing  for  shar-usur.  The  only  prob- 
able example  in  late  Aramaic  is  Bazira,  **seed,"  for 

»  See  examples  in  CIS  ii-i,  38.6,  50  et  al. 

'  E.g.,  CIS  ii,  16,  29,  30,  34,  35,  36,  40,"4i,  44, 46;  Is.  xi,  xlvi.  i;  Jer. 
I,  2,  5,  I,  I,  44;  2  Kings,  20,  12. 

»  E.g.,  CIS  i,  10,  29,  38,  22,  82,  88,  81,  21,  39. 

^  E.g.,  in  Sargon  for  Sharrukin. 

s  E.g.,  in  the  Aramaic  Sharkin=Ass.  Sharrukin,  CIS  ii,  i,  32,  and  in 
the  O.  T.  Hebrew  in  Sharezer,  Is.  Ivii,  38,  2  Ki.  xix,  37,  Zech.  vii,  2, 
and  in  Nergal-shar-ezer,  Jer.  xxxix,  3,  13. 

6  CIS  ii,  i.  82. 


Belshazzar  105 

barzar'a,  though  even  this  is  doubtful.'  So  that  there 
is  no  evidence  to  show  that  it  was  usual  at  any  time  in 
the  history  of  the  Aramaic  language,  nor  indeed  of  any 
of  the  Semitic  languages,  for  any  of  them  to  assimilate 
or  drop  an  r.  Admitting  then  that  an  r  has  been 
dropped,  or  assimilated,  in  the  shar  of  Belshazzar, 
what  follows  as  to  the  time  when  it  was  dropped,  or 
assimilated?  Nothing,  of  course.  And  so,  the  charge 
that  Belshazzar  is  a  late  form  because  of  the  assimilated 
r  and  that  hence  the  book  is  late  falls  to  the  ground.* 
But  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  spelling  was 
late,  that  would  not  prove  that  the  book  was  late;  e.g, 
American  editions  of  English  authors  drop  u  from  col- 

*  See  NSldeke,  Mand.  Gram.,  p.  55;  and  Neu-Syrische  Gram.,  p.  53. 
The  Babylonian-Aramaic  *ama  is  probably  derived  from  the  Babylonian 
amu  and  not  from  'amar.  See  Dalman,  C7raw  des.jud.  pal.  Aram.,  p. 
loi.  Compare  also  Phenician  ctrs  for  Heb.  D'cnn  Lidzbarski,  Nord- 
semit.  Epigraphie,  p.  246,  and  Madassuma  for  Madarsuma.  Schrd- 
der,  Die  phonizische  Sprache,  pp.  99  and  105. 

»  As  to  the  spelling  of  foreign  proper  names  by  contemporaries,  we 
would  like  also  to  say  a  word  in  this  connection.  We  have  no  right 
to  demand  in  this  respect  from  the  biblical  writers,  what  we  do  not 
demand  from  ourselves,  or  from  others,  in  the  way  of  accuracy.  We  say 
Emperor  William;  the  Germans  say  Kaiser  Wilhelm.  The  Persians 
said  Khshayarsha;  the  Hebrews,  Ahashwerosh;  the  Greeks,  Xerxes; 
the  Egyptians,  Khshyarsha;  the  Susians,  Ikshersha,  or  Iksherishsha; 
while  the  Babylonians  spelled  it  in  at  least  twenty-three  different  ways, 
the  most  common  of  which  was  Ak-shi-ia-ar-shi. 

The  contemporaries  of  Darius  the  son  of  Hystaspis  spelled  his  name 
as  follows:  the  Greeks,  Dareios;  the  Persians,  Darayavaush;  the  Susi- 
ans, Tariyamaush;  the  Hebrews,  Dareyawesh;  and  the  Egyptians, 
Babylonians  and  Arameans  in  at  least  three  different  ways.  See  Sachau's 
Aram.  Papyrus  for  their  spellings  in  Egypto-Aramaic.  The  Peshitto 
gives  a  fourth  spelling  in  use  among  the  Syrian  Arameans.  For  the 
many  spellings  in  Babylonian,  see  Tallquist's  Namenbuch  and  Clay's 
Murashu  Tablets,  from  time  of  Darius  H,  and  the  author's  articles  on 
the  "Titles  of  the  Kings  in  Antiquity  "  in  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed 
Review  for  1904-5,  and  on  the  "Titles  of  the  Persian  Kings"  in  the  Fest- 
schrift Eduard  Sachau,  Berlin,  1915,  pp.  179-207. 


io6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

our  and  like  words,  even  though  the  English  editions 
have  it. 

III.  It  is  said,  further,  that  Belshazzar  never  became 
king  in  his  father's  place.  This  is  one  of  those  ambigu- 
ous statements  worthy  of  the  oracle  of  Delphi.  Daniel 
does  not  say  that  Belshazzar  ever  became  king  in  his 
father's  place,  or  in  the  same  sense  that  his  father  had 
been  king,  nor  over  the  same  dominion.  It  simply  says 
that  he  was  "king  of  the  Chaldeans"  and  *'king  of 
Babylon."  This  last  phrase  is  used  of  him  only  once 
and  then  his  first  year  only  is  mentioned.  I  repeat,  that 
the  book  of  Daniel  speaks  only  of  the  first  year  of 
Belshazzar  as  king  of  Babylon:  to  wit,  in  the  first  verse 
of  chapter  seven.  In  chapter  viii,  I  it  speaks  sim- 
ply of  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Belshazzar  the 
king,  without  defining  over  what  or  whom  he  reigned. 
In  chapter  v,  30,  he  is  called  the  Chaldean  king,  and 
in  verse  18  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  These  state- 
ments can  all  be  easily  reconciled  with  the  monuments 
by  saying  that  Belshazzar,  who,  according  to  Daniel 
ix,  I,  had  at  least  for  three  years  been  king  of  the 
Chaldeans,  was  for  at  least  a  year  or  part  of  a  year,  in 
some  sense  or  another,  the  king  of  Babylon.  There  are 
the  following  matters  involved  in  this  assertion: 

1.  The  different  ideas  connoted  by  the  word 
-king." 

2.  The  possibility  of  there  being  two  kings  of 
the  same  country  at  one  and  the  same  time. 

3.  The  different  ideas  connoted  by  the  phrase 
''king  of  Babylon." 

4.  The   difference  between  "  king  of  Babylon " 
and  "  king  of  the  Chaldeans." 

5.  The  twofold  datings  of  reigns. 

6.  The  possibility  of  a  man's  having  two  fathers. 


Belshazzar  107 

1 .  The  different  ideas  connoted  by  the  word  * '  king, ' ' 
have  akeady  been  sufficiently  discussed  in  Chapter  V. 

2.  On  the  possibility  of  there  being  two  kings  over 
the  same  country  at  the  same  time,  we  can  confidently 
affirm  that  this  was  often  the  case.  It  may  be  alleged 
in  favor  of  this  proposition,  that  (i)  for  prudential 
reasons,  such  as  for  settling  the  succession,  sons  were 
sometimes  crowned  during  the  Hfetime  of  their  father. 
For  example,  Solomon  was  proclaimed  king  while  his 
father  David  was  still  alive. '  Esarhaddon  had  his  two 
sons  Ashurbanipal  and  Shamash-shum-ukin  crowned 
respectively  as  kings  of  Assyria  and  Babylon  before 
he  died  in  668  B.  c.  *  The  Persian  kings  also  appointed 
a  successor  before  they  started  on  any  expedition, 
(Herodotus,  vii,  2).  In  accordance  with  this  custom 
Darius  Hystaspis  appointed  Xerxes  to  be  king  over  the 
Persians  before  he  prepared  to  march  against  Greece.  ^ 
Later  still  the  Greek  Seleucid  kings  followed  this  cus- 
tom; for  Antiochus  calls  his  son  Seleucus  king  while 
he  himself  was  still  reigning.  * 

(2)  Sometimes,  the  reigning  monarch  made  his  son, 
or  some  other  person,  king  of  a  part  of  his  dominion. 
Thus,  Pharaoh-Necho  made  Eliakim  king  of  Judah, 
changing  his  name  to  Jehoiakim ;  ^  and  Nebuchadnezzar 
made  Mattaniah  king,  changing  his  name  toZedekiah.^ 
So,  also,  in  702  B.C.,  Sennacherib  placed  Bel-ibni,  a  scion 
of  a  noble  family  of  Babylon  who  had  grown  up  at  the 
court  of  Nineveh,  upon  the  throne  of  Babylon  as  a  sub- 
king;  and  in  699  he  enthroned  his  own  son  Ashur- 
nadin-shum  in  Babylon,  still  under  subordination  to 

'  I  Kings  i,  39. 43,  46,  51, 53. 

^  Winckler's  History  of  Babylon  and  Assyria,  p.  272.  '  Her.  vii,  4. 

*  Weissbach,  Die  Keilinschriften  der  Achdmeniden,  p.  145. 

s  2  Kings  jcxiii,  34.  *  2  Kings  xxiv,  17. 


io8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

himself  as  overlord.'  Later,  he  seems  to  have  made 
his  son  Esarhaddon  governor  (Aramaic,  king)  of  Baby- 
lon. =*  In  668  B.C.,  Esarhaddon  proclaimed  his  younger 
son  Shamash-shum-ukin  king  of  Babylon  under  the  over- 
lordship  of  Ashurbanipal  king  of  Assyria.  ^  He  also 
appointed  at  one  time  20  sub-kings  in  Egypt.  ^  When 
Cyrus  conquered  Nabunaid  and  Belshazzar,  he  seems 
to  have  made  his  older  son  Cambyses  king  of  Babylon, 
while  he,  himself,  took  the  title  of  king  of  lands.  ^ 

(3)  Jeremiah  speaks  of  the  ''kings  of  the  Medes." 
This  wotdd  imply  that  when  Jeremiah  wrote,  there 
were  more  kings  of  Media  than  one.  That  this  impli- 
cation of  Jeremiah  is  correct  is  supported  by  the  fact 
stated  by  Cyrus  on  the  Cylinder  Inscription  and  by 
Darius  on  the  Behistun  Inscription  and  elsewhere,  that 
the  father  and  grandfather  and  great-grandfather  of 
Cyrus,  and  Teispes  the  common  ancestor  of  Cyrus 
and  Darius,  were  kings  of  Anshan  (or  Persia?),  while 
that  country  was  still  subject  to  the  Median  hegemony. 
It  agrees,  also,  with  the  usual  system  of  government  in 
vogue  in  Western  Asia,  and,  in  a  measure,  in  Egypt 
also  (compare  Tel-el- Amarna  Letters),  up  to  the 
time  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  even  in  part  in  the  Per- 
sian empire  during  and  after  his  time;^  as,  also,  with  the 
system  of  government  employed  in  later  times  by  the 
Arsacid  kings  ^  down  to  the  time  of  Ardashir,  the  first 
of  the  Sassanid  dynasty  of  Persia.  ^ 

»  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  pp.  118,  119.  '  Winckler,  id.,  122. 

3  Id.,  124.  •♦  KB  ii,  162.  s  See  KB  iii-ii,  134. 

^  See  the  catalogue  of  Xerxes'  forces  which  marched  against  Greece, 
in  Herodotus,  vii,  61-99. 

'The  common  title  of  the  Arsacids  was  "king  of  kings."  Seethe 
author's  article  in  PTR  for  Jan.,  1917. 

*  According  to  Jacob  of  Sarug,  "king  of  kings"  was  a  title,  also,  of 
the  ancient  kings  of  India.     See  Schroter,  in  ZDMG  vol.  xxv,  353. 


Belshazzar  109 

That  the  Persian  empire  in  the  time  of  Cyrus,  also, 
had  more  kings  than  one  is  supported  by  what  Daniel 
says  about  Darius  the  Mede.  Darius  the  Mede  is  not 
called  in  Daniel  either  king  of  Persia,  or  king  of  Media, 
or  king  of  Medo-Persia;  but  simply  *Hhe  Mede"  (vi,  i ; 
xi,  i) ;  or  "the  son  of  Xerxes  of  the  seed  of  Media  who 
had  been  made  king  over  the  kingdom  of  the  Chal- 
deans/'^ If  Darius  the  Mede  is  the  same  as  Ugbaru 
(Gubaru,  Gobryas)  the  Pihat  of  Gutium,  then  he  was 
made  for  a  time  the  Pihat  of  the  city  of  Babylon  also. 
If  Darius  the  Mede  was  not  the  same  as  Gobryas  the 
Pihat  of  Gutium,  then  Daniel  vi,  I,  ix,  I,  xi,  I,  must 
be  taken  along  with  v,  30,  as  meaning  that  Darius 
received  the  de  jure  kingdom  of  Belshazzar  the  Chal- 
dean, that  is,  the  kingdom  of  Chaldea.  In  this  latter 
case,  Gobryas  will  have  succeeded  Belshazzar  as  Pihat 
of  the  city  of  Babylon  and  Darius  the  Mede  will  have 
succeeded  Belshazzar  as  king  of  Chaldea,  both  of  them 
being  under  the  suzerainty  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia  and 
of  the  lands.  This  interpretation  agrees  with  Daniel 
vi,  29,  where  it  is  said  that  Daniel  prospered  in  the 
reign  of  Darius  and  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus  the  Persian. 
It  agrees,  also,  with  the  statement  of  chapter  vi,  verses 
9,  13,  16,  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  ruling  according 
to  the  laws  of  Media  and  Persia. 

Further,  Darius  the  Persian,^  speaks  of  his  father 
Hystaspis  as  having  been  a  king.  Inasmuch  as 
Hystaspis  can  only  have  been  a  sub-king  under  Cyrus, 
this  implies  that  the  policy  of  Cyrus  permitted  of 
the  reigning  of  kings  under  himself  as  king  of  kings. 
Moreover,  Herodotus  says  that  Hystaspis  was  hyparch, 
i.  e.,  satrap,  of  Persia  under  Smerdis,  whereas  Darius 
calls    Hystaspis    king.     Again,    C3rrus,    according    to 

*  IX,  I.  'Behistun  Inscription,  Col.  i,  line  8, 


no  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Ctesias,  made  his  son  Tanyoxarus  independent  sove- 
reign of  a  portion  of  his  dominion  at  the  same  time 
that  he  constituted  the  elder  brother  Cambyses  his  suc- 
cessor in  the  empire,'  just  as  Esarhaddon  established 
Ashurbanipal,  his  eldest  son,  as  king  of  Assyria  and  Sha- 
mash-shum-ukin,  a  younger  son,  as  king  of  Babylon. 
Nabunaid  probably  pursued  this  same  policy ;  for  accord- 
ing to  one  interpretation  of  the  inscriptions  of  Eshki- 
Harran,^  his  son  Nabunaid  II  called,  like  his  father, 
*'king  of  Babylon,"  was  ruling  as  king  of  Harran  in 
northern  Mesopotamia  imder  the  overlordship  of  Na- 
bunaid I  at  Babylon.  ^  It  is  probable,  also,  that  the 
*'son  of  the  king"  who  is  mentioned  in  the  Chronicle 
as  having  been  in  command  of  the  army  in  Accad  was 
Belshazzar,  and  that  he  had  been  made  king  of  the 
Chaldeans  with  his  capital  at  Ur.  ■♦ 

(4)  Finally,  that  Belshazzar  was  in  some  sense  looked 
upon  and  treated  as  a  king  as  early  as  the  twelfth  year 
of  Nabunaid,  is  evident  from  the  tablet  already  cited 
on  which  a  man  called  Isi-  Amurru,  son  of  Nuranu,  is 
said  to  have  "sworn  by  Bel,  Nabu,  the  Lady  of  Erech, 
and  Nana,  the  oath  of  Nabunaid,  king  of  Babylon,  and 
of  Belshazzar,  the  king's  son. "  That  Belshazzar  is  here 
treated  as  a  king  is  shown,  as  has  been  pointed  out, 
by  the  fact  that  oaths  were  never  sworn  by  the  name 


» Blakesly,  Herodotus,  ii,  430.  ,i 

*H.  Pognon,  Inscriptions  Semitiques  de  la  Syrie,  etc.,  Paris,  1907. 

» It  is  probable,  or  at  least  possible,  that  this  is  the  king  referred  to  in 
the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle  as  having  been  conquered  and  killed 
in  the  9th  year  of  Nabunaid  I  (KB  iii,  ii,  130.) 

4  Compare  Tiele,  Geschichte^  p.  463.  The  interpretation  of  the  Eshki- 
Harran  inscription  given  by  Zehnpfund  would  of  course  modify  these 
relations.  If  the  high-priest  of  Harran  be  the  same  as  Nabu-balatsu- 
ikbi  the  father  of  Nabunaid,  it  was  the  father  who  reigned  at  Harran 
while  the  son  was  king  of  Babylon, 


Belshazzar  1 1 1 

of  any  men,  except  those  of  royal  rank.  It  is  espe- 
cially noteworthy  in  this  connection  that  in  four,  or 
five,  cases,  the  names  of  two  kings  are  found  in  the 
same  oath. ' 

This  new  tablet  removes  the  last  reasonable  objection 
that  could  be  made  to  the  right  of  the  author  of  Daniel 
to  call  Belshazzar  king.  It  will  also  allow  of  his  having 
been  king  for  at  least  five  years.  For  this  tablet  dates 
from  the  12th  year  of  Nabunaid,  whereas  he  was  not 
dethroned  till  his  17th  year.' 

(5)  We  know  that  Nabimaid,  like  the  other  kings 
of  the  great  empires  of  Assyria  and  Babylon,  had 
many  rulers,  called  kings,  subservient  to  him. 

» I.  In  KU  248,  the  oath  is  "by  (§amas),  Marduk,  Sumulael,  and 
Sabium."     Sumulael  and  Sabium  were  father  and  son. 

2.  In  KU  380,  the  oath  is  "by  SamaS  and  Immerum,  by  Marduk 
and  Sumulael."     Immerum  and  Sumulael  were  contemporaries. 

3.  On  a  tablet  published  by  Langdon  in  PSBA  xxxiii,  192,  we  read: 
"By  Nannar  and  Manana,  by  Zamama  and  Yapiimi  they  swore." 
According  to  Prof.  Johns,  this  oath  shows  that  Manana  had  probably 
associated  Yapium  with  him  on  the  throne,  just  as  Sabium  associated 
his  son  Apil-Sin  with  himself  for  at  least  his  last  year. » 

4.  In  KU  420,  an  oath  "by  Marduk  and  Sin-Muballit,  by  Anum- 
bel-tabi  (?)  and  his  wife  (?),"  occurs.  In  this  case,  Ranke  thinks  that 
Anum-bel-Tabi  is  the  name  of  a  king  of  Assyria.  (Early  Babylonian 
Personal  Names,  S.  E.  D.  iii.)  If  "his  wife"  is  a  correct  reading,  this 
is  the  only  case  where  a  woman  is  mentioned  in  an  oath.  If  she  were 
queen  of  Assyria,  the  rule  that  none  but  royal  persons  are  named  in 
oaths  would  still  hold  good. 

'  For  authorities  on  the  oath  among  the  Babylonians  and  Assyrians 
the  reader  is  referred  to  HammuraWs  Gesetz  by  Kohler,  Peiser, 
and  Ungnad  (KU);  also,  to  Assyrische  Rechtsurkunden  by  Kohler 
and  Ungnad;  to  Babylonisches  Rechtslehen  by  Kohler  and  Peiser;  to 
Hundert  ausgewdhlte  Rechtsurkunden  by  Kohler  and  Ungnad;  to  Babylon- 
ische  Vertrdge  by  Peiser;  to  articles  by  Langdon  and  Johns  in  PSBA 
for  191 1 ;  to  Notes  by  Thureau-Dangin  in  the  Revue  d* Assyriologie 
for  191 1,  and  especially  to  an  article  by  Prof.  S.  A.  B.  Mercer  in 
AJSLL  vol.  xxix. 

'PSBA  xxxiii,  99. 


112  The  Book  of  Daniel 

For  example,  in  the  great  cylinder  from  Abu-Habba, 
Col.  i,  38-43,  lie  says  that  he  mustered  the  kings, 
princes,  and  governors,  from  Gaza  on  the  border  of 
Egypt  to  the  Upper  Sea  beyond  the  Euphrates  to  the 
building  of  Ehullul  the  house  of  Sin.  ^  So,  Cyrus, 
also,  says  on  his  cylinder,  line  28,  that  the  totality  of 
the  kings  of  the  whole  world  from  the  Upper  Sea  to  the 
Lower  Sea,  (and)  all  the  kings  of  Amurri  brought  their 
tribute  to  him  at  Babylon.  In  his  prism  inscription. 
Col.  V,  12-27,  Esarhaddon  gives  his  orders  to  12  kings 
of  Palestine  and  Syria,  and  to  10  kings  of  Cyprus,  all 
of  whom  and  their  allies  he  mentions  by  name.  In 
another  place,  he  calls  himself  king  of  the  kings  of 
Egypt.  ^  The  names  of  these  kings,  20  in  number,  and 
their  cities,  are  given  by  Ashurbanipal  on  the  Rassam 
Cylinder,  Col.  i,  90-109.  Similar  facts  may  be  gath- 
ered in  scores  from  the  Assyrian  inscriptions. 

3.  Can  there  have  been  more  than  one  man  called 
*'king  of  Babylon"  at  one  time? 

It  is  certain  that  Cyrus  and  Cambyses  were  both 
called  kings  of  Babylon  in  contract  tablets  of  the  same 
month  an(3  year.^  The  inscription  from  Eshki- 
Harran  published  by  M.  Pognon  shows  that  Nabunaid 
I  and  his  son  Nabunaid  II  were  both  called  "king  of 
Babylon"  on  the  same  inscription.  Inasmuch  as  the 
Aramaic  and  Hebrew  of  Daniel  know  no  words  for 
ruler  save  king,  ruler,  lord,  and  prince,^  it  is  obvious 
that  Gobryas  (Gubaru)  the  pihatu,  or  governor,  of 
Babylon,  mentioned  in  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle, 
Reverse  20,  must  have  been  denoted  in  Aramaic  in  his 
official  capacity  by  one  of  these  words.     The  word 

«  KB  ii,  ii,  99.  »  ^B  il,  150;  I  R.,  48,  No.  5. 

3  Tiele,  Geschichte,  pp.  483,  484. 

<  Melekf  shallit  or  shilton^  rab  and  sar. 


Belshazzar  1 13 

rah,  **lord, "  is  never  used  as  mayor,  or  governor,  of  a 
city  or  province  in  the  Bible  in  either  Hebrew  or  Ara- 
maic. Shallit  is  thus  used  in  Hebrew  only  of  Joseph,  in 
Gen.  xlii,  6,  and  of  a  ruler  in  general,  in  Ecc.  x,  5; 
in  Aramaic  only  in  Daniel  ii,  15,  of  Arioch,  the  chief 
{rah)  of  the  executioners  of  the  king,  and  in  Daniel  v, 
29,  and  ii,  10.  ^  Shilton  is  used  in  the  Bible  only  in  the 
Aramaic  of  Daniel  iii,  2,  3,  as  a  general  term  for  all 
*'the  rulers  of  the  provinces."  Sar^  is  never  used 
anywhere  in  any  Aramaic  dialect.  Melek_  (king)  is 
used  over  5000  times  in  biblical  Hebrew,  always 
in  the  sense  of  the  chief  man  of  a  city,  province, 
kingdom,  or  empire.  In  biblical  Aramaic,  it  is 
used  nearly  200  times,  and  it  is  the  only  appropri- 
ate Aramaic  word  found  in  Daniel  for  the  chief  ruler  of 
a  city,  province,  kingdom,  or  empire,  except  perhaps 
the  shilton  of  iii,  2  and  3.  So,  that  if  Belshazzar  was 
not  a  king  of  the  empire  or  kingdom  of  Babylon,  but 
only  ruler  of  a  province,  or  city,  the  writer  of  Daniel 
was  limited  in  the  pure  Hebrew  to  a  choice  of  terms 
wherewith  properly  to  designate  him  to  sar  and  melek. 
He  chose  melek,  perhaps  because  it  was  more  definite 
and  unambiguous.  In  Aramaic,  the  writer  was  limited 
to  malka  and  shilton^  and  he  chose  the  more  common 
term.  ^ 

*  In  ii,  10  and  v,  29,  it  is  probably  a  verbal  adjective. 

'  In  Biblical  Hebrew,  it  is  used  about  400  times,  usually  of  the  captain 
of  an  army,  or  of  a  part  of  an  army,  or  in  the  sense  of  our  word  prince;  a 
few  times  in  the  sense  of  the  head  man  of  a  city,  as  in  Jud.  ix,  30;  i 
Kings  xxii,  26-2;  Chron.  xviii,  25;  2  Kings  xxiii,  8;  2  Chron.  xxxiv,  8; 
twice  certainly  in  the  sense  of  governor,  as  in  Esther  viii,  9;  ix,  3;  and  a 
few  times  in  the  sense  of  king,  as  in  Daniel  viii,  25;  x,  13;  x,  20  bis;  Hos. 
viii,  10  (?). 

3  The  Egyptian  papyri  show  that  he  might,  also,  have  used  mdr,  a 
title  which  was  given  to  the  governors  of  Egypt  under  the  Persians. 
See  Sachau,  Aram,  Papyrus,  p.  286, 


114  The  Book  of  Daniel 

4.  Is  there  any  difference  between  the  terms  "king 
of  Babylon"  and  "king  of  the  Chaldeans"  or  "Chal- 
dean king"? 

The  importance  of  this  question  lies  in  the  fact  that 
only  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar  as  king  of  Babylon  is 
mentioned  (vii,  i),  whereas  his  third  year  as  king  is 
spoken  of  in  chapter  viii,  i.  Now,  if  we  suppose  that 
Belshazzar  is  the  "son  of  the  king"  mentioned  in 
the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle  as  having  been  killed 
at  the  storming  of  the  citadel  of  Babylon  by  Gobryas, 
he  can  have  been  de  facto  king  of  that  part  of  Babylon 
for  only  about  four  months.  This  would  be  enough, 
however,  to  justify  the  writer  of  Daniel  in  speaking 
of  his  first  year  as  king  of  Babylon.  But  how  then  can 
this  writer  speak  of  his  third  year  as  king?  Evidently, 
he  must  refer  to  his  having  been  king  in  some  sense 
before  that  time.  In  Daniel  v,  29,  he  is  called  the  *  *  Chal- 
dean king"  or  "king  of  the  Chaldeans";  and  we  have 
only  to  suppose  that  Nabunaid  I  had  made  Belshazzar 
king  of  the  Chaldeans  in  the  southern  part  of  his  domin- 
ions, just  as  he  had  probably  made  Nabunaid  II  king 
in  the  northern  part  of  his  dominions  around  Harran,  in 
order  to  reconcile  the  statements  of  Daniel  with  the 
inscriptions.  I  have  already  said  that  Professor  Tiele, 
in  his  history  of  Babylonia,  puts  forth  the  view  that 
Belshazzar  was  probably  reigning  at  Ur  in  southern 
Babylonia,  when  his  father  Nabunaid  I  wrote  the 
hymns  to  Sin  in  which  Belshazzar' s  name  is  mentioned. 
The  reader  must  remember,  that  the  Chaldeans  and 
Babylonians  were  not  originally  the  same  people;  but 
that  the  Chaldeans  had  again  and  again  conquered 
Babylon,  and  in  the  reign  of  Nabopolassar  the  father 
of  I^ebuchadnezzar  the  Great  had  established  their 
dominion  over  it.     Nabunaid  I,  however,  seems  to  have 


Belshazzar  115 

been  a  Babylonian  who  superseded  the  Chaldean  house 
of  Nebuchadnezzar.'  In  what  relation  he  stood  to 
Nebuchadnezzar  we  have  no  means  of  determining. 
In  what  manner  Belshazzar  may  have  been  called 
Nebuchadnezzar*s  son,  we  shall  discuss  below.  It 
is  sufficient  for  our  present  piupose  to  state  that, 
it  is  probable  that,  for  some  reason  or  another,  Bel- 
shazzar was  made  king  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  that  it 
was  in  this  capacity  that  the  writer  referred  to  his 
third  year.  This  reference  to  the  different  datings 
of  his  reign  raises  the  next  question. 

5.  Could  the  years  of  a  king's  reigning  be  dated  in 
more  ways  than  one?  We  have  already  discussed  above 
the  different  ways  of  dating  the  beginning  of  a  king's 
reign  over  a  given  country.  Here  we  shall  discuss  dif- 
ferent datings  of  his  reign  over  different  coimtries. 

It  will  be  known  to  the  readers  of  British  history, 
that  James  the  VI  of  Scotland  became  king  of  England 
after  the  death  of  Elizabeth  in  1603.  But  he  had  been 
crowned  king  of  Scotland  on  July  29,  1567.  His  mother. 
Queen  Mary,  did  not  leave  Scotland  till  May  16,  1568, 
and  was  not  executed  till  Feb.  8,  1587.  Here,  then,  are 
four  dates,  from  any  one  of  which  the  years  of  James' 
reign  may  have  been  dated.  From  July  29,  1567,  he 
was  in  a  sense  de  jure  and  de  facto  king  of  Scotland.  In 
1603,  he  became  king  of  England.  The  historians 
and  archives  of  England  speak  of  his  years  as  king  of 
England;  the  historians  and  archives  of  Scotland,  of  his 
years  as  king  of  Scotland.  The  same  historian  might 
speak  of  either  one  or  the  other  reign  and  date  accord- 
ingly. In  the  dates  from  the  22nd  dynasty  of  Egyptian 
kings,  a  double  system  is  the  common  one.  *  *  Manetho's 
defective  statements "  with  regard  to  the  length  of  the 

«  Winckler;  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  p.  324. 


ii6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

reigns  of  the  kings  of  this  dynasty  may  arise  from  the 
fact  that  he  may  refer  to  the  length  of  the  reigns  **  after 
the  death  of  the  predecessor,  while  the  regnal  years  on 
monuments  count  from  the  beginning  of  a  co-regency. " ' 
Thus  Shabaka  is  entitled  king  of  Egypt  as  early  as 
725  B.C.,  though  his  accession  to  the  throne  must  have 
been  about  715  e.g.,""  and  Taharka  was  already  in 
701  B.C.  king  of  Cush,  although  he  did  not  become 
sole  king  till  693  B.C.  ^  So,  Tiglath-Pileser  III  was  for 
17  years  king  of  Assyria,  but  died  in  his  second  year 
as  king  of  Babylon.  ^  Ashurbanipal  was  king  of  Assyria 
for  43  years,  and  probably  king  of  Babylon  under 
the  name  of  Kandalanu  for  17  years.  ^  Moreover, 
Pognon  argues  with  great  plausibility,  that  Nabunaid 
was  king  of  Babylon  for  17  years,  but  of  Harran  for 
only  nine.  ^ 

Now,  the  writer  of  Daniel  was  confronted  by  the  same 
situation,  certainly  with  regard  to  one  king,  and  most 
probably  v/ith  regard  to  at  least  three  kings.  The  one 
king  is  Cyrus.  At  first,  he  was  king  only  of  the  city 
or  country  of  Anshan,  a  part  of  Elam.  Here  he  began 
to  reign  about  556  B.C.  Later,  about  549  B.C.,  he 
became  king  of  Media,  after  conquering  Astyages  and 
his  capital,  Ekbatana.  Three  years  later,  in  546  B.C., 
he  is  first  called  king  of  Persia.  Then,  in  538  B.C.,  he 
became  king  of  Babylon.  When  Daniel  speaks  of  his 
first  year,  in  chapter  i,  verse  21,  he  is  evidently  speak- 
ing of  his  first  year  as  king  of  Babylon.  When  he 
speaks  of  his  third  year,  in  chapter  x,  I,  he  says  **the 
third  year  of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia";  so  that  the  two 

^Petrie,  History  of  Egypt,  iii,  227.  *7i.,  282. 

ild.,  296.  4KB  ii,  277,  and  i,  215. 

sWinckler,  Hist,  of  Bah.  and  Ass.,  237-242. 
^Inscriptions  Semitiques  de  la  Syric,  p.  9  foil. 


Belshazzar  117 

statements  are  perfectly  consistent.  So,  also,  when 
Daniel  speaks  in  chapter  viii,  i,  of  the  third  year  of 
Belshazzar  the  king,  he  may  mean  the  third  of  his  reign 
as  king  of  Chaldea;  and  when  he  speaks  of  his  first  year, 
in  vii,  I,  he  most  probably  means  the  first  year  as 
king  of  Babylon. 

6.  The  possibility  of  a  man*s  having  two  fathers  is 
involved  in  the  assumption  made  by  the  critics,  that 
Belshazzar  cannot  have  been  called  by  Daniel  the  son 
of  the  Chaldean  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  at  the  same 
time  have  been  the  son  of  the  Babylonian  Nabunaid  I. 

A  large  part  of  the  difficulty  and  confusion  in  the 
discussion  of  this  subject  has  arisen  from  a  failure  to 
consider  first  of  all  what  the  orientals  connoted  by  the 
terms  father  and  son.  Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith 
has  discussed  the  terms  at  length  as  to  their  use  in 
Arabic,  in  his  work  Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early 
Arabia, '  The  conclusions  there  reached  are  that  a  man 
might  have  four  or  even  five  fathers.  These  may  be 
called  (i)  procreator,  (2)  possessor,  or  **the  man  in 
whose  house  one  is  bom, "  (3)  the  foster  father,  or  **the 
one  who  raises,  or  nurtures  him,"  (4)  the  protector,  or 
adoptive  father,  (5)  a  man  who  adopts  one  after  he  has 
already  been  adopted  once.  To  these  might  be  added 
the  use  of  father  (6)  to  denote  a  stepfather,  ^  who  is  not 
a  foster  or  adoptive  father,  and  (7)  as  a  title  of  re- 
spect, or  politeness,  or  endearment.  ^  So,  also,  son  was 
used  in  ancient  documents  (i)  to  denote  succession  in 
oface,  as  Jehu  is  called  the  son  of  Omri;'»  or  (2^  for  mem- 


»Pp.44-46,  110-114.  *Murahht 

»See  in  Story  of  Badoura,  Lane's  Arabian  Nights,  p.  308;  and  also, 
in  Babylonian,  as  in  the  inscription  of  Eshki-Harran,  published  by 
M.  Pognon  in  his  Inscriptions  Semitiques  de  la  Syrie,  Paris,  1907-8. 
<KAT,  2nd  edition,  189,  22. 


ii8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

bers  of  a  corporation,  as  the  son  of  a  prophet  is  used  in 
the  Scriptures,'^  or  the  son  of  a  scribe  in  Assyrian;^  or 
(3)  for  remote  descendant,  as  son  of  Adam  in  the  Ara- 
bian Nights,  ^  or  son  of  David,  and  son  of  Abraham  in 
the  New  Testament;^  or  (4)  for  grandson,  as  frequently 
in  the  Scriptures;  or  (5)  for  members  of  a  race,  or  tribe, 
as  sons  of  the  Achasans,^  or  sons  of  Ammon;^  or  (6)  to 
denote  a  patronymic,  as  sons  of  Babylon ^  in  Sargon's 
inscriptions, 7  for  Babylonians;  or  (7)  to  denote  char- 
acter, as  **sons  of  thunder,"  **son  of  his  father  the 
devil,"  **sons  of  God";  or  (8)  to  denote  one  in  a  sub- 
ordinate position,  as  a  slave  ;^  or  (9)  as  a  title  of  affec- 
tion or  respect;  9  or  (10)  stepson'**  or  (11)  "the  son  of  the 
bed  of  the  man  in  whose  house  one  is  born";"  or  (12) 
adopted  son.  So  among  the  Arabs,  see  W.  R.  Smith,  id. ; 
and  among  the  Babylonians." 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  may  have 
been  called  the  father  of  Belshazzar,  just  because  he 
was  his  predecessor  on  the  throne  of  Babylon,  in  the 
same  sense  as  Omri  was  the  father  of  Jehu  who  de- 
stroyed the  house  of  Omri,  or  as  Naram-Sin  more  than 
a  thousand  years  before  Nebuchadnezzar  is,  in  one  of 
his  inscriptions,  called  by  the  latter  his  **old  father.  "^^ 
Or,  Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  been  the  grandfather 
or  even  the  great-grandfather,  of  Belshazzar.  When 
Nebuchadnezzar  made  his  first  recorded  expedition 

'  I  Kings  XX,  35  et  al. 

»  Sargon:  Annals,  378,  382,  466;  Pr.  31,  109,  152  et  aL 

3  Lane,  ii,  196.  4  Lk.  xviii,  38;  xix,  9.  s  Iliad,  i,  1 16. 

^  Num.  xxi,  24.  7  Annals,  296  et  al. 

8  Johns,  Assyrian  Deeds  and  Documents,  iii,  413,  475. 

9  So  in  the  Arabian  Nights,  Lane,  pp.  304  and  308,  in  the  Story  of  the 
Princess  Badoura.  "Arabic,  rahih.  "W.  R.  Smith,  op  cit. 

'2  Cook's  Laws  of  Moses  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  p.  131,  seq. 
^3  Abam  labiru,  Langdon,  p.  69,  ii,  27. 


Belshazzar  119 

across  the  Euphrates  in  605  B.C.,  he  can  scarcely  have 
been  under  20.  If  he  were  25  at  that  time,  he  would 
have  died  at  about  69  years  of  age,  old  enough  to  have 
had  a  great-grandson  of  15  years  when  Nabunaid 
became  king  in  555  B.C.,  and  32  years  old  in  538 
B.C.  Or,  since  Nebuchadnezzar  died  in  561  B.C.,  a  son 
of  his  might  easily  have  been  flourishing  in  538  B.C. 
As  to  the  relation  between  Belshazzar  and  the  two 
kings  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Nabunaid,  he  may  well 
have  been  the  son  of  both.  First,  he  may  have  been 
the  procreated  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  stepson 
of  Nabunaid,  because  the  latter  married  Belshazzar's 
mother  after  the  death  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  was 
the  custom  of  succeeding  kings  to  marry  the  wives  of 
their  predecessors.  Thus  Smerdis  the  Magian  married 
the  wives  of  his  deceased  predecessor  Cambyses  and 
Darius  Hystaspis  married  Atossa,  the  daughter  of 
Cyrus,  and  Phaedyma,  the  daughter  of  Otanes,'  both 
of  whom  had  been  the  wives  of  his  two  predecessors. 
In  this  case,  Belshazzar  may  have  been  the  own  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  and  the  foster  son  of  Nabunaid.  Or, 
Nabunaid  may  have  been  merely  the  stepfather  of  Bel- 
shazzar. The  queen  of  Daniel  v,  10,  may  have  been  the 
mother  of  Belshazzar  (though  she  is  not  called  this), 
and  still  have  been  a  young  woman  when  the  glory  of 
the  Chaldee's  excellency  passed  into  the  hands  of  the 
conquering  Medo-Persian  army  under  Gobryas  and 
Cyrus.  Or,  Belshazzar  may  have  been  the  own  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  adopted  son  of  Nabunaid. 
This  would  account  for  the  fact  that  Berosus,  accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  *  calls  Nabunaid  a  Babylonian,  whereas 
Belshazzar  is  called  by  Daniel  a  Chaldean.  What  could 
have  been  better  policy  on  the  part  of  the  Babylonian 
*  Herodotus,  iii,  68,  88.  » Cont,  ApioUf  i,  20. 


I20  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Nabunaid  than  to  attempt  to  unite  the  conquered 
Babylonians  and  the  Chaldean  conquerors  by  adopting 
as  his  own  successor  the  son,  or  grandson,  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, the  greatest  of  all  the  Chaldean  kings? 
According  to  the  code  of  Hammurabi,  i86,  190,  193,  a 
man  might  in  this  way  have  two  fathers.  This  was  the 
law,  also,  in  the  time  of  Nabunaid.' 

A  natural  question  arises  here,  namely,  how  could 
Belshazzar  be  called  by  Nabunaid,  not  merely  the 
**son  of  the  Icing,"  but  *' Belshazzar  the  first-born 
son"^  and  "Belshazzar  the  first-born  son,  the  off- 
spring of  my  heart,  "^  if  he  were  not  the  born  son  of 
Nabunaid?  Fortunately,  this  question  is  answered  in 
Meissner's  Althahylonisches  Privatrecht,  98,  where  we 
learn  that  an  adopted  son  could  be  called,  not  merely 
''the  son, "  but  "the  eldest  son "  of  his  adopted  parents. ^ 

In  the  inscription  of  Eshki-Harran  the  high  priest 
calls  Nabunaid  his  "son,  the  offspring  of  his  heart"; 
although  we  know  that  Nabunaid  was  the  son  of  Nabu- 


*  See  Strassmaier  :  Inscriptions  of  Nabunaid,  No.  380,  and  KB  iv,  238, 
and  the  able  discussion  in  Cook's  Laws  of  Moses  and  the  Code  of 
Hammurabi,  p.  131  seq.  Thus,  in  Peiser's  Babylonian  Contracts 
{Dabylonische  Vertrdge),  xxxi,  14-17,  Iddina-Nabu,  the  son  of  {apilshu) 
Nabubanzir  gives  corn,  etc.,  to  his  father  (abishu)  Gimillu.  In  number 
xxxviii,  7,  of  the  same  work  it  is  said,  that  Gimillu  had  taken  Iddina- 
Nabu  to  sonship  (ana  marratu)  and  Iddina-Nabu  as  adopted  son  gets 
the  inheritance  of  Gimillu  {id.,  cxxx,  5,  6).  In  No.  43  of  Schorr's  trea- 
tise {Altbabylonische  Rechtsurkunden)  Belishunu,  the  priestess  of  Sham- 
ash,  and  daughter  of  Nakarum,  is  adopted  by  Eli-eriza,  the  priestess  of 
Shamash,  and  daughter  of  Shamash-ilum,  and  calls  Eli-eriza  her  mother. 
So,  in  No.  30,  12,  of  the  same,  Shataya  is  called  the  mother  of  Amat- 
Mamu,  daughter  of  Sha-ilushu;  but  in  i,  27,  Shamuhtum,  also,  is  called 
her  mother  {i.  e.,  own  mother).  So  that  it  is  clear  that  a  child,  accord- 
ing to  Babylonian  law,  could  have  two  fathers  or  two  mothers. 

^  "Die  Crosse  Inschrift  von  Ur,''  KB  iii,  ii,  83,  89  {^nar  rish-tu-u). 

J  "Die  Kleine  Inschrift  von  Ur,'*  KB  id.,  97. 

<  See,  also,  Johns'  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Laws,  p.  156. 


Belshazzar 


121 


balatsu-ikbi.  ^  It  will  be  seen  that  this  law  answers 
the  objection  that  might  be  raised,  arising  from  the  fact 
that,  on  the  Behistim  Inscription,  the  rebels  against 
Darius,  Nadintu-bel  and  Arachu,  both  assumed  the 
name  of  "Nebuchadnezzar  the  son  of  Nabunaid.  "* 
There  may  have  been  an  own  son  of  Nabunaid  with  the 
name  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  another  son  of  the  name 
of  Nabunaid,  and  yet  his  adopted  son  might  be  called 
the  first-bom  son  and  be  the  heir-apparent.  ^ 

Or  Belshazzar  may  have  been  the  adopted  son  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  own  son  of  Nabunaid.  An 
adopted  son  might  call  his  adopted  father,  * 'father. '* 
Or,  Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  been  the  grandfather 
and  Nabunaid,  also,  the  grandfather  of  Belshazzar. -• 
Or,  finally,  it  is  possible  that  Nabunaid  was  a  lineal 
descendant  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  For  the  father  of  the 
former  was  Nabu-balatsu-ikbi,  "the  wise  prince,**  and  if 
we  take  this  Nabu-balatsu-ikbi  to  be  the  son  of  the 
A'melu  mentioned  in  the  tablet  from  the  reign  of  Nabu- 
naid (495,  24),  and  take  this  Amelu  to  be  the  same  as 
Amel-Marduk  the  son  and  successor  of  Nebuchadnez- 

»  See  the  great  cylinder  of  Abu-Habba,  i,  6. 

»  See  Bezold's  AcJidmentdeninschriften,  i,  77-90,  and  i,  77-89. 

3  See  Johns*  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Laws,  p.  156. 

In  addition  to  the  above  places,  which  are  given  in  Schrader's  Keil- 
schriftliche  Bibliothek,  Belshazzar  is  called  "the  son  of  the  king"  in 
Clay's  Miscellaneous  Inscriptions  of  [the  Yale  Babylonian  Collection, 
No.  39  bis,  and  in  the  Inschriften  von  Nabonidus  by  Strassmaier,  No. 
581,  line  4,  and  1043,  line  4;  and  "Belshazzar  the  son  of  the  king"  in 
the  same  book,  No.  184,  and  No.  581,  lines  2,  3,  and  No.  688,  line  3, 
and  No.  270,  lines  4,  6,  9,  and  i2i;  also,  "Belshazzar"  alone,  on  No.  581, 
line  9.  Tablets  184,  581,  and  688  are  referred  to  and  translated  in 
Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  vol.  iii,  124-127. 

*  Sir  Robert  Anderson  quotes  from  the  Transactions  of  the  Victoria  In*- 
stitute  (vol.  xviii,  p.  99)  as  follows:  "In  a  table  of  Babylonian  kings, 
mention  is  made  of  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  married  the 
father  of  Nabunaid." 


122  The  Book  of  Daniel 

zar,  then  Nabunaid  would  be  the  great-grandson  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  and  Belshazzar,  son  of  Nabunaid, 
would  be  the  great-great-grandson  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
in  the  direct  male  line. 

IV.  Lastly,  it  is  assumed  that  Belshazzar  **was  not 
styled  'king'  by  his  contemporaries,"  and  that  there- 
fore he  cannot  have  been  a  king  at  all,  much  less  a  king 
of  Babylon.  Professor  Driver  cites  as  his  authority 
for  this  statement  a  comment  of  the  late  Prof.  Eberhard 
Schrader  of  Berlin.  With  regard  to  this  statement  of 
Professor  Schrader,  that  Belshazzar  was  not  styled 
*'king"  by  his  contemporaries,  it  is  true  that  we  have 
documents  from  every  year  of  the  time  during  which 
events  described  in  the  book  of  Daniel  are  said  to  have 
transpired,  and  that  not  one  of  these  documents  styles 
Belshazzar  "king. "  They  support,  however,  the  state- 
ments of  Daniel  in  that  they  give  us  independent  evi- 
dence that  there  was  a  Belshazzar;  that  this  Belshazzar 
was  a  son  of  Nabunaid,  king  of  Babylon,  and  hence 
might  be  justly  called  in  some  sense  the  son  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar; and  that,  if  he  were,  as  he  most  probably 
was,  the  son  of  the  king  (Nabunaid)  mentioned  in  the 
Cyrus-Nabunaid  Cylinder,  he  may  have  given  a  feast 
to  a  thousand  of  his  lords  (Dan.  v,  i),  inasmuch  as  this 
son  of  the  king  is  said  on  the  same  cylinder  to  have  been 
accompanied  by  his  lords  ;^  and  that  Belshazzar  most 
probably  is  treated  as  the  heir-apparent  in  being  given 
command  of  his  father's  armies,  as  Nebuchadnezzar  had 
been  by  his  father,  and  in  being  mentioned  on  the  Abu- 
Habba  Cylinder  in  conjunction  with  his  father,  just  as 
Cambyses  is  mentioned  along  with  Cyrus  on  the  Cyrus 
Cylinder  and  elsewhere,  and  Seleukus  along  with  his 
father  Antiochus  on  the  latter's  Clay-cylinder  inscrip- 

'  Rabrevin  in  Daniel,  rabute  on  the  cylinder. 


Belshazzar  123 

tion.'  Certain  contract  tablets  show,  also,  that  Bel- 
shazzar the  son  of  the  king  was  a  man  of  varied  business 
interests. 

But  in  no  one  of  them  is  he  styled  ''king. " 

From  this  fact  it  has  been  concluded  that  he  was 
not  a  king. 

But  this  conclusion  is  a  non  seguitur,  as  we  shall  now 
attempt  to  prove. 

Before  discussing  the  testimony  of  the  extra-biblical 
documents,  I  shall  quote  the  passages  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  which  mention  Belshazzar.  There  are,  first,  the 
fifth  chapter,  where  we  find  him  referred  to  as  Bel- 
shazzar the  king  (v.  i),  king  Belshazzar  (v.  9),  the 
king  (v.  2,  3,  5,  6,  7,  8,  10,  13,  17,  18),  Belshazzar  (v. 
2,  22,  29),  and  "Belshazzar  the  king  of  the  Chaldeans" 
(or  "the  Chaldean  king")  (v.  30) ;  secondly,  the  seventh 
chapter,  verse  i,  where  we  have  the  phrase  "the  first 
year  of  Belshazzar  king  of  Babylon,"  and  the  eighth 
chapter,  verse  i,  where  we  have  the  heading,  "In  the 
third  year  of  the  reign  of  king  Belshazzar. " 

There  is  no  doubt,  then,  that  in  the  book  of  Daniel 
Belshazzar  is  called  a  "king." 

But  how  is  it  with  the  contemporaneous  records? 

First,  let  us  simimon  the  biblical  witnesses.  There 
are  none  to  be  found.  There  is  no  book  of  the  Bible, 
aside  from  Daniel,  that  can  testify  with  reference  to 
Belshazzar,  because  not  one  of  them  has  anything  to  say 
relevant  to  this  period  in  which  Belshazzar  lived.  The 
last  notice  of  the  books  of  Kings  concerns  Evil-Mero- 
dach,  the  immediate  successor  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and 
he  died  in  558  B.C.  The  books  of  Chronicles  say  nothing 
about  the  times  of  Belshazzar  except  what  is  found  in 
the  last  four  verses;  but  here  we  find  no  reference  to 

» Weissbach,  Die  Keilinschriften  der  Achdmeniden,  p.  133. 


124  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Babylon,  nor  to  any  of  its  kings,  but  only  to  Persia  and 
to  Cyrus  king  of  Persia,  in  connection  with  his  decree 
for  the  return  of  God's  people  to  Jerusalem.  The  book 
of  Ezra  begins  with  this  decree,  and  mentions  Nebuchad- 
nezzar alone  of  all  the  kings  of  Babylon.  The  Psalms 
are  silent  with  regard  to  the  history  of  Babylon  at  this 
time  as  far  as  it  concerns  the  kings,  or  the  names  of  the 
kings.  The  only  one  of  the  prophets  that  might  poa- 
sibly  have  given  us  any  testimony  is  Isaiah;  but  he 
again  is  silent,  never  mentioning  any  king  of  Babylon 
except  Merodach-Baladan,  who  reigned  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  eighth  century  B.C. 

So  that,  having  no  testimony  at  all  to  give  it  would 
have  been  utterly  impossible  for  the  biblical  witnesses 
to  have  styled  Belshazzar  *'king. '*  Speaking  more 
strictly,  there  are  outside  of  Daniel  no  biblical  witnesses 
to  Belshazzar. 

Secondly,  let  us  examine  th^  extra-biblical  testi- 
mony. This  consists  of  contract  tablets,  letters, 
hymns  and  incantations,  and  building  and  historical 
inscriptions. 

(i)  The  contract  tablets  that  mention  Belshazzar 
are  dated  from  the  first  to  the  twelfth  year  of  the  reign 
of  Nabunaid.  They  all  call  Belshazzar  "the  son  of  the 
king,"  but  never  style  him  **king. *'  We  have  no  evi- 
dence in  Daniel  that  Belshazzar  was  a  king  of  any  kind 
for  more  than  three  years,  or  king  of  Babylon  for  more 
than  a  year,  or  part  of  a  year.  Since  Daniel  says  that 
he  was  slain  when  Babylon  was  captured  in  the  17th 
year  of  Nabunaid,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  no  neces- 
sary discrepancy  between  the  tablets  and  Daniel's 
narrative.  When  the  contracts  were  made,  he  was  prop- 
erly styled  **the  son  of  the  king. "  When  Daniel  men- 
tions him  he  had  become  a  king,  first  of  the  Chaldeans 


Belshazzar  125 

and  next  of  Babylon.  As  Prof.  Clay  says,^  '*the  fact 
that  Belshazzar  .  .  .  was  peculiarly  identified  with  his 
father  Nabonidus  in  his  reign  is  illustrated  by  No.  39  of 
the  Yale  collection.  This  tablet  reads  as  follows :  In  the 
month  Tebet,  day  15th,  year  7th,  of  Nabtmaid,  king  of 
Babylon,  Shumukin  says  as  follows:  The  great  star 
Venus,  the  star  Kiskaski,  Sin  and  Shamash,  in  my 
dream  I  saw,  and  for  the  favor  of  Nabunaid,  king  of 
Babylon,  my  Lord,  and  for  the  favor  of  Belshazzar,  son 
of  the  king,  my  Lord,  may  my  ear  hearken  to  them. 
On  the  17th  day  of  Tebet,  the  7th  year  of  Nabunaid, 
king  of  Babylon,  Shumukin  says  as  follows :  'The  great 
star  I  saw,  and  for  the  favor  of  Nabunaid,  king  of  Baby- 
lon, my  Lord,  and  for  the  favor  of  Belshazzar,  the  son 
of  the  king,  my  Lord,  may  my  ear  hearken.'  ** 

Here,  Belshazzar  is  evidently  in  some  official  position, 
which  entitles  him  to  be  associated  with  his  father 
in  an  unusual  and  striking  manner,  that  is  simi- 
lar to  the  way  in  which  Cyrus  and  Cambyses,  and 
later  Antiochus  and  Seleucus,  are  associated  on  the 
inscriptions.  The  only  difference  is,  that  Belshazzar 
is  not  called  king,  whereas  Cambyses  and  Seleucus  are 
so  called.  In  the  tablet  published  by  Mr.  Pinches  in 
the  PSBA  for  January,  1916,  an  oath  is  taken  in  the 
names  of  Nabunaid  and  Belshazzar  conjointly.  All  the 
evidence  (and  there  is  much  of  it)  goes  to  show  that 
only  the  names  of  gods  and  kings  were  used  in  oaths,  the 
single  exception  being  that  of  the  city  of  Sippar.^ 

(2)  Among  the  letters  from  the  time  of  Nabunaid, 
one  was  written  by  Belshazzar  himself.  In  it  he  calls 
himself  simply  Bel-shar-u  [surj.^ 

'  Miscellaneous  Inscriptions  from  the  Yale  Babylonian  Collection,  pp. 
55-57-  'See  pp.  no,  III. 

3  Mittheilungen  der  vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft,  xii,  15. 


126  The  Book  of  Daniel 

(3)  The  hymns  and  incantations  that  may  possibly 
have  been  written  in  the  reign  of  Nabunaid  never 
mention  the  names  of  kings  or  of  any  other  persons. 
Hence  they  could  not  be  expected  to  have  styled 
Belshazzar  king. 

(4)  In  the  building  inscriptions,  Belshazzar  is  men- 
tioned only  in  Col.  ii,  lines  24,  25,  of  the  cylinders  found 
in  the  corners  of  the  zikkurat  at  Ur,  where  he  is  called 
*'the  first-born  son,  the  darling  of  the  heart"  of  Nabu- 
.naid.  ^ 

(5)  Of  the  two  historical  inscriptions  which  cover 
any  portion  of  the  reign  of  Nabunaid,  or  Cyrus,  the 
Chronicle  states  that  a  son  of  Nabunaid  was  in  command 
of  the  army  in  Accad  from  the  7th  to  the  12  th  year  of 
the  king.  This  son  was  probably  Belshazzar.  No 
reason  is  known  why  he  is  not  mentioned  by  name. 
The  Cyrus  Cylinder  says  that  a  son  ( ?)  of  the  king  was 
killed  at  the  capture  of  the  citadel  of  Babylon  by  Go- 
bryas.  This  son  is  not  named  in  the  inscription,  nor  is 
'he  given  a  title;  but  Daniel  apparently  calls  him  Bel- 
shazzar and  says  that  he  was  in  command  of  the  Chal- 
dean forces  and  entitles  him  *'king.  *'  Cyrus  would 
naturally  refer  to  him  merely  as  a  son  of  the  king, 
not  having  admitted  his  claim  to  be  the  de  jure  or  de 
Jacto  successor  of  his  father  Nabunaid. 

Conclusion 

The  evidence  given  above  shows  that  the  author  of 
Daniel  does  not  contradict  any  * '  other  assured  witnesses 
of  the  Old  Testament, "  when  he  represents  Belshazzar 
as  the  king  of  Babylon  under  whom  the  citadel  was 
taken.  All  that  the  book  of  Daniel  necessarily  implies 
when  it  says  that  Belshazzar  was  king  of  Babylon  is 

*  Zehnpfund-Langdon,  Bdbylonische  Konigsinschriften,  p.  253. 


Belshazzar  127 

that  he  was  de  facto  king  of  the  city  after  Nabunaid  was 
taken  prisoner.  The  evidence  shows,  also,  that  Bel- 
shazzar may  have  been  called  king  of  Babylon  without 
ever  having  become  king  in  his  father's  place  over  the 
empire  of  Babylonia;  for  in  the  last  four  months  before 
the  citadel  was  taken  and  after  his  father  had  sur- 
rendered, he  was  the  only  king  whom  the  last  defenders 
of  Babylon  could  have  acknowledged.  His  first  year 
as  king  of  Babylon  is  all  that  the  book  of  Daniel  men- 
tions. He  may  have  been  king  of  the  Chaldeans,  or 
Chaldean  king,  for  many  years  before,  through  the 
capture  of  his  father  Nabunaid  by  the  Persians,  he 
became  king  of  Babylon. 

Thus  "the  recollections  of  a  late  age,**  as  they  are 
presented  in  Daniel,  will  agree  exactly  with  what  the 
monuments  tell  us  about  the  situation  at  the  time  when 
Babylon  was  taken  by  the  Medes  and  Persians.  Fur- 
ther, it  has  been  shown  by  the  evidence  that  a  son  of  a 
king  might  be  called  a  king;  that  Belshazzar  may  have 
been  king  at  the  same  time  that  his  father  was;  that 
there  may  have  been  two  persons  called  king  of  Baby- 
lon at  the  same  time;  that  a  man  might  have  been  king 
of  the  Chaldeans,  or  king  both  of  Babylon  and  of  the 
Chaldeans ;  and  that  the  years  of  the  reign  of  a  monarch 
might  be  dated  in  one  way  for  his  rule  over  one  country, 
or  people,  and  in  another  way  for  his  rule  over  a  second 
country,  or  people.  Lastly,  it  has  been  shown  that  Bel- 
shazzar may  legally  have  had  two  fathers;  and  that 
hence  it  is  no  objection  to  the  accuracy  of  Daniel  that 
he  is  called  by  him  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  while 
the  monuments  call  him  the  son  of  Nabunaid. 

In  short,  the  evidence  fails  to  show  that  any  of  the 
above-named  assumptions  of  the  critics  with  regard  to 
him  are  true. 


CHAPTER  VII 

DARIUS  THE  MEDE 

When  one  asserts  that  the  author  of  Daniel  has 
** confused'*  events  or  persons,  it  is  not  enough  for  him 
to  affirm  that  the  author  was  thus  confused.  This 
confusion  is  a  matter  of  evidence.  With  all  due  defer- 
ence to  the  opinion  of  other  scholars,  I  am  firmly 
convinced  that  no  man  to-day  has  sufficient  evidence 
to  prove  that  the  author  of  Daniel  was  confused. 
There  are  no  records  to  substantiate  the  assertions  of 
confusion.  Neither  is  it  clear  to  the  critics  nor  can 
they  make  it  clear  to  others,  that  the  author  of  Daniel 
either  did  not  understand  the  facts  with  regard  to  Da- 
rius the  Mede,  nor  clearly  express  himself  about  them. 

In  this  and  the  following  chapters,  it  is  my  intention, 
then,  to  review  the  objections  to  the  book  of  Daniel  on 
the  ground  of  what  it  says  with  regard  to  Darius  the 
Mede  and  with  regard  to  what  it  is  asserted  to  say,  or 
imply,  with  respect  to  the  kingdom  and  people  of  the 
Medes.  In  this  present  chapter,  the  attempt  will  be 
made  to  show  that  the  book  of  Daniel  does  not  assert 
that  Darius  the  Mede  ever  reigned  over  Babylon  as  an 
independent  sovereign,  and  that  Darius  the  Mede  was 
probably  the  same  as  Gobryas  the  sub-king  of  Babylon, 
appointed  by  his  overlord  Cyrus.  In  connection  with 
these  questions  will  be  considered  the  methods  of  dating 
documents  used  among  the  ancients  in  and  about  Baby- 

128  , 


Darius  the  Mede  129 

Ion,  and  the  lack  of  all  extra-biblical  records  referring  to 
his  reign,  his  office,  age,  name,  race,  and  official  acts. 

Objections  Stated 

Among  other  objections  it  is  asserted,  that  **the 
author  of  Daniel  had  an  entirely  false  idea  regarding 
the  fall  of  Babylon  imder  the  Semitic  dynasty.  He 
evidently  thought  that  Darius  the  Mede  preceded 
Cyrus  the  Persian.  **'  The  author  of  Daniel  ** makes  a 
Median  ruler  receive  Babylon  after  the  overthrow  of 
the  native  dynasty,  and  then  mentions  later  the  histori- 
cal Cyrus.  We  may  suppose  that  the  biblical  writer 
believed  that  Cyrus  succeeded  to  the  empire  of  Babylon 
on  the  death  of  the  Median  Darius.*** 

Assumptions  Involved 

There  are  in  these  statements  three  assumptions:  (i) 
that  the  biblical  writer  believed  that  Cyrus  succeeded 
to  the  empire  of  Babylon  on  the  death  of  the  Median 
Darius;  (2)  that  he  makes  a  Median  ruler  receive  the 
empire  of  Babylon  after  the  overthrow  of  the  native 
dynasty;  (3)  that  the  author  of  Daniel  mentions  Cyrus 
as  if  he  were  later  than  Darius  the  Mede. 

Answer  to  Assumptions 

I.  Professor  Prince  bases  the  first  of  these  state- 
ments upon  Daniel  vi,  29,  which  reads:  "Daniel  pros- 
pered in  the  kingdom  of  Darius  and  in  the  kingdom 
of  Cyrus  king  of  Persia.'*  It  is  admitted  that  this 
might  mean  that  Cyrus  was  the  successor  of  Darius 

«  Prince,  Commentary  on  Daniel,  p.  127.  "  Id.,  p.  54. 


130  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  Mede.  It  can  be  shown,  however,  that  it  may 
equally  well  mean  that  the  two  kings  reigned  contem- 
poraneously and  that  the  one  may  have  been  subor- 
dinate and  subject  to  the  other.  In  support  of  this 
statement  the  following  evidence  is  advanced. 

Systems  of  double  dating  were  common  in  antiquity 
as  they  still  are  in  many  parts  of  the  world.  The 
thanksgiving  proclamations  of  our  presidents  bear  the 
double  dates  of  the  year  of  the  republic  and  of  the  year 
of  the  Lord.  The  diplomas  of  our  colleges  bear  the 
double  date  of  the  year  from  the  founding  of  the  college 
and  the  year  of  the  Lord.  So  among  the  Assyrians  we 
find  that  the  contract  tablets  were  dated  at  times  from 
the  year  of  the  king  and  from  the  limmu  (or  archon,  or 
mayor)  of  the  city  of  Nineveh.  Bezold  refers  to  more 
than  forty  of  the  double-dated  tablets.' 

In  the  Babylonian  docimients  from  the  time  of  the 
Arsacid,  or  Parthian,  kings,  we  find  a  regular  system 
of  dual  dates,  one  taken  from  the  Arsacid  era  beginning 
248  B.C.,  and  the  other  from  the  Seleucid  or  Greek  era 
beginning  312  B.C.* 

Among  the  Phenicians,  also,  we  find  double  or  even 

^  See  his  Catalogue  of  the  Cuneiform  Tablets,  etc.,  p.  2005.  Thus 
we  have  a  tablet  dated  "the  8th  of  Aim  in  the  limmu  of  Manzami 
the  governor  (am.  pihat)  of  the  land  of  Kulbania  in  the  year  22 
of  Sennacherib  king  of  Assyria"  (KB  iv,  120).  Another  from  "the 
1st  of  Airu,  the  23d  year  of  Sennacherib,  king  of  Assyria,  the  limmu  of 
Mannuki-Ramman  deputy  (shakin)  of  the  city  of  Supiti"  {id.,  122). 
Another  from  "the  27th  of  the  month  Ab  in  the  limmu  of  the  turtan  of 
the  city  of  Kumuh  in  the  reign  {tarsi)  of  Ashurbanipal  king  of  Assyria" 
{id.,  134).  Another  "in  the  3rd  year  of  Shalmanasharid,  king  of 
Assyria,  when  Illuiada'  was  deputy  {shakin)  of  Durilu"  {id.,  158). 

» Thus,  to  give  two  examples  out  of  many,  "in  the  year  130  [of  the  era] 
of  king  Arsaces,  which  is  the  same  as  the  year  194  [of  the  era  of  the 
Greeks]."  See  ZA  xv,  193.  So,  also,  "in  the  year  145  of  Arsaces, 
king  of  kings,  which  is  the  same  as  the  year  209"  {id.).  See,  also, 
numerous  examples  in  Clay's  Morgan  Collection,  Part  II. 


Darius  the  Mede  131 

triple  dates  at  times.  Thus  on  a  statue  from  Lamax 
Lapethos  (Namaka)  there  is  an  inscription  which  con- 
tains the  date:  "on  the  new  moon  of  Zebah-shishshim, 
which  is  in  the  nth  year  of  the  lord  of  kings  Ptolemy, 
son  of  the  lord  of  kings  Ptolemy,  which  is  the  33rd  year 
of  the  people  of  Lapethos,  while  the  priest  to  the  lord 
of  kings  was  'Abd-'Ashtart,  son  of  Ger-*ashtart  gover- 
nor {rah)  of  the  land."' 

So,  among  the  Nabateans  we  find  an  inscription 
from  Damascus  having  the  double  date  **in  the  month 
lyar,  in  the  year  405  by  the  reckoning  of  the  Romans 
[Greeks],  which  is  the  24th  year  of  king  Rabel. '** 
Compare,  also,  the  double  date  in  the  inscription  from 
Wady-Mukattib:^  **The  year  106  equivalent  to  the 
year  of  the  three  Caesars."^ 

Among  the  Palmyrenes,  we  find  the  following  quad- 
ruple dating  to  a  decree  of  coimcil: 

In  the  month  Nisan,  the  i8th  day  of  the  year  448,  dur- 
ing the  presidency  of  Bonne  son  of  Bonne,  son  of  Hairan, 
and  the  secretaryship  of  Alexander,  son  of  Alexander, 
son  of  Philopater,  secretary  of  the  council  and  People, 
while  the  archons  were  Maliku,  son  of  'Olai,  son  of  Mokimu, 
and  Zebida,  son  of  Nesa.^ 

Among  the  Syrians  of  Edessa,  a  double  or  triple 
dating  seems  to  have  been  the  rule.  Thus  we  find 
the  following  dates:  **In  the  year  513,  in  the  kingdom  of 
Septimus  Severus,  Emperor  of  Rome,  and  in  the  king- 
dom of  Abgar  the  king,  son  of  Ma'nu  the  king,  in  the 
month  Tishri  the  second";*^  and  "in  the  year  15 14  of 

»  Cooke,  North  Semitic  Inscriptions ^  p.  82;  see,  also,  the  same,  p.  78, 
and  Lukeiii,  i  f.,  for  other  examples.  *  Cooke,  id.,  249. 

3  Euting,  457.  *  Id.,  261.  5  Id.^  320, 

^  Assemani,  B.  O.,  i,  390. 


132  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  Greeks  and  the  year  559  of  the  Arabs,  while  Unk 
Khan,  that  is,  John  the  Christian  king,  was  king  over 
the  people,*'  etc.^ 

So,  also,  in  the  introduction  to  the  History  of  Addai 
the  Apostle  in  Syriac,  we  find  the  following  date:  "In 
the  year  343  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Greeks,  in  the  king- 
dom of  our  Lord,  Tiberius  Caesar,  the  Roman,  and  in 
the  kingdom  of  Abgar,  the  king,  the  son  of  Ma'nu,  the 
king,  in  the  month  Tisri,  the  first,  on  the  12th  day.  ** 
But  Tiberius  and  Abgar  were  contemporaneous  and  the 
latter  subject  to  the  former. 

But  we  have  equally  sure  evidence  not  so  far  afield  in 
the  tablets  from  the  reigns  of  Cyrus  and  Cambyses;  to 
wit,  in  Strassmaier's  tablets  of  Cyrus,  No.  16,  the 
subscription  reads:  **In  the  tenth  day  of  the  month 
Siman  of  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  king  of  lands,  Cam- 
byses [being]  king  of  Babylon.  "=* 

In  tablet  No.  81  of  Cambyses,  we  read  '*  Babylon, 
Kislev  25,  year  one  of  Kambushiya,  king  of  Babylon,  in 
his  day  and  that  of  Kurash,  his  father,  king  of  lands." 
Compare  tablet  46:  "Babylon,  Duzu  25,  year  one  of 
Kambushiya,  king  of  Babylon,  when  (enuma)  Kurashu, 
his  father,  [was]  king  of  lands."  Much  like  this  is 
tablet  108  of  VASD  vi:  "Babylon,  the  19th  day  of  Ab 
in  the  year  one  of  Cambyses  king  of  Babylon  when 
(enushu)  Cyrus  was  king  of  lands."  In  tablet  425, 
both  Cyrus  and  Cambyses  are  called  "king  of  Babylon, 
king  of  lands, "  but  the  tablet  is  unfortunately  so  broken 
as  to  render  the  connection  illegible.  In  No.  426, 
"Kambushiya  king  of  Babylon"  is  twice  preceded  by 
the  phrase  "king  of  lands,"  but  unfortunately  again, 
the  name  of  the  king  is  illegible.  Still,  it  could  scarcely 
have  been  any  other  than  Cyrus.     On  tablet  42  occurs : 

*  Assemani,  B.  O.,  iii,  2,  495,  '  See  the  last  clause  on  reverse. 


Darius  the  Mede  133 

**  Babylon,  Duzu  9,  year  one,  of  Kambushiya,  king  of 
Babylon,  son  of  Kurash,  king  of  lands. " 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  documents,  that  Cyrus  and 
Cambyses  were  both  given  the  title  of  king  simultan- 
eously, and  this  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  and  again  in 
the  first  year  of  Cambyses.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that 
Cambyses  enjoyed  his  office  and  title  as  king  of  Babylon 
all  the  time  that  his  father  was  king  of  the  lands.  But 
when  did  he  become  king  of  Babylon?  The  earliest 
tablet  that  mentions  him  under  this  title  is  the  one 
given  above  which  dates  from  the  tenth  day  of  the 
third  month  of  the  first  year  of  Cyrus.  How  long 
before  this  he  might  have  claimed  the  title  is  not  cer- 
tain; but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  on  the  fourth  of  Nisan 
of  the  same  year  he  is  said  in  the  Annals  of  Nabunaid' 
to  have  grasped  the  hand  of  Nebo,  and  since  this 
ceremony  was  performed  by  the  ruler  at  the  new  year's 
festival,*  we  can  fairly  conclude  that  Cambyses  was 
in  some  sense  king  of  Babylon  from  the  fourth  of  Nisan 
of  the  year  one  of  Cyrus.  ^ 

Having  thus  shown  that  there  might  be  two  kings  of 
Babylon  at  the  same  time,  we  have  only  to  show  that 
Darius  the  Mede  was  the  same  as  Gobryas  in  order  to 
reconcile  completely  the  statement  of  Daniel  vi,  29,  and 
the  disclosures  of  the  monuments.  For  we  have  seen 
above  that  Gobryas  was  Cyrus*  governor  {amel  pihate- 
shu)  of  Babylon  as  early  at  least  as  the  3rd  day  of  the  8th 
month  of  Cyrus*  accession  year.  -•  He  was  in  command 
on  the  nth  of  the  same  month,  when  Belshazzar  was 


»  KB  iii,  ii,  135.  •  See  Muss-Araolt's  Diet.,  p.  861. 

'Especially  may  we  so  conclude  in  agreement  with  Winckler's 
statement  on  page  xxxvi  of  his  Inscriptions  of  Sargon  that  a  king  sub- 
mitted to  this  ceremony  in  order  to  be  rightly  proclaimed  as  king  of 
Babylon.  <  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chron.,  KB  iii,  ii,  135. 


134  The  Book  of  Daniel 

slain.  It  is  most  probable— there  is  nothing,  at  least, 
against  the  supposition — that  he  remained  in  command 
and  at  the  head  of  the  government,  until  Cambyses  was 
installed  as  king  of  Babylon  on  the  4th  of  Nisan  of  the 
following  year.  The  only  question  here,  then,  is :  what 
would  be  the  title  in  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  of  Gobryas 
as  amel  pihate  of  Babylon  ?  In  answer,  we  can  only  say 
that  malka  or  melek  (or  sar)  would  be  the  only  suitable 
words;  and  that  Gobyras  could  rightly  be  called  by  this 
title  as  long  as  he  was  amel  pihate  of  the  city  or  province 
of  Babylon,  i.  c,  from  the  3rd  day  of  the  8th  month  of 
Cyrus*  accession  year  to  the  3rd  of  Nisan  of  his  first 
year. 

In  favor  of  Darius,  the  Mede,  having  been  sub-king 
rather  than  the  king  of  kings  we  notice  the  fact  that,  in 
Daniel  vi,  l,  it  is  said  that  Darius  the  Mede  received 
the  kingdom;^  and  in  Daniel  ix,  I,  it  is  said  that  he 
*'was  made  king  Qiomlak)  over  the  kingdom  of  the 
Chaldeans."  How  well  this  harmonizes  with  the 
statement  of  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle,  where 
Gobryas  is  called  Cyrus*  governor!  How  well  it 
suits  the  other  statements  of  Daniel  that  he  succeeded 
**the  Chaldean  king,"  "Belshazzar  the  king  of  Baby- 
lon"! Notice  that  not  one  word  is  said  in  any  book 
of  the  Bible  about  Darius  the  Mede  having  been  king  of 
Persia,  nor  even  of  Media. 

But  it  is  said,  that  no  contracts  are  dated  from  the 
reigns  of  Belshazzar  and  Darius  the  Mede.  We  should 
rather  say,  that  none  dated  from  their  reigns  have  as 
yet  been  found.  But  this  is  no  conclusive  argument. 
For,  notice,  that  out  of  the  ten  years  of  the  con- 
temporaneous reigns  of  Cyrus  and  Cambyses,   only 

*  See  Pinches,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Historical  Records 
cf  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  p.  419. 


Darius  the  Mede  135 

five  tablets  containing  the  dates  with  the  names  and 
titles  of  both  kings  in  an  unbroken  and  absolutely 
trustworthy  text  have  been  found,  one  from  the  first 
year;  so-called,  of  Cyrus,  and  two  from  the  first  year, 
so-called,  of  Cambyses.  How  coiild  we  expect  to  find 
one  from  the  four-month  reigns  of  Belshazzar  and  of 
Darius  the  Mede?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Strassmaier 
gives  but  twelve  tablets  from  the  end  of  the  4th  month 
of  the  17th  year  of  Nabimaid  when  Nabimaid  was 
captured,  imtil  the  nth  of  the  8th  month,  when  Bel- 
shazzar was  slain;  and  all  of  these  are  dated  with  the 
name  of  Nabunaid,  except  one  bearing  the  name  of  *  *  Cy- 
rus king  of  Babylon  and  of  the  lands,'*  and  dated  the 
7th  (or  perhaps  better  the  4th)  month  of  the  accession 
year.  Only  one  tablet  bearing  the  name  of  Nabunaid 
has  been  found  dated  after  that  fatal  night  on  the 
eleventh  of  the  eighth  month.  It  bears  date  *'the 
9th  month  [day  not  given]  of  the  17th  year  of  Nabu- 
naid king  of  Babylon."' 

From  the  time  when  Gobryas  was  made  governor  of 
Babylon,  imtil  the  4th  of  Nisan  of  the  ensuing  year, 
we  have  beside  this  one  tablet  of  Nabunaid,  eight 
tablets  dated  with  the  name  of  Cyrus.  All  of  these, 
with  perhaps  one  exception  (that  of  tablet  3,  where 
the  inscription  is  injured),  have  the  title  "king  of 
lands"  alone,  thus  suggesting  that  someone  else  was 
during  this  time  king  of  Babylon.  Besides,  at  no  time, 
except  during  the  co-regnancy  of  Cyrus  and  Cambyses, 
have  we  as  yet  found  any  evidence  that  the  name  of  the 
governor  (or  sub-king)  of  Babylon,  as  well  as,  or  instead 
of,  that  of  the  king  of  kings,  was  ever  placed  upon  the 
contract  tablets  of  Babylon. 

Under  the  Persian  kings,  there  were  many  governors 

»  Strassmaier,  Ins.  von  Nab.,  No.  1055. 


136  The  Book  of  Daniel 

of  Babylon,  such  as  Zopyrus,  mentioned  in  Herodotus,  ^ 
but  not  one  Babylonian  record  bears  the  name  of  any 
one  of  them,  at  least  in  his  official  capacity. 

In  this  connection,  it  might  be  said,  that  Nirgal- 
sharusur  calls  his  father  Nabu-balatsu-ikbi  king  of 
Babylon;  and  yet  we  have  no  documents  from  the 
father's  reign ;  and  that  a  Nabunaid,  probably  the  future 
king  of  that  name,  is  once  called  "son  of  the  king  of  the 
city.''  Furthermore,  there  are  many  kings  of  Baby- 
lon mentioned  in  the  Assyrian  monuments  from  whose 
reigns  we  have  no  records  of  any  kind.  Again,  from  the 
times  of  the  last  three  kings  of  Assyria,  Ashur-etil-ilani, 
Sin-shar-ishkun,  and  Sin-shum-lishir,  only  six  or  seven 
tablets  and  a  few  other  records  have  come  down  to  us. 
From  the  reigns  of  Xerxes  the  Second,  Sogdianus, 
Arses,  and  Darius  the  Third,  we  have  no  Babylonian 
records  as  yet  published.  From  the  long  reign  of 
Artaxerxes  II  there  are  only  three  contract  tablets 
thus  far  published.*  Of  the  time  from  the  accession 
of  Alexander  to  the  end  of  the  Arsacids,  a  period  of 
about  300  years,  we  have  all  told  but  a  few  score 
records  of  all  kinds. 

But  it  might  be  said  that  not  merely  have  we  no 
records  coming  from  his  reign,  but  also  that  the  contem- 
poraneous documents  never  even  so  much  as  refer  to 
Darius.  This  will  not  be  true,  if  we  identify  him  with 
Gobryas,  for  he  is  named  three  times  in  the  Cyrus 
Chronicle,^ 


» Bk.  Ill,  160. 

="  The  astronomical  tables  published  by  Kugler  in  his  Sternkunde  und 
Sterndienst  in  Babel,  pp.  76  and  80,  must  be  added  to  these.  The 
table  on  page  80  mentions  Artaxerxes  III  also. 

3  A  tablet  bearing  the  name  of  Gobryas  was  published  by  Dr.  Pinches 
in  the  Expository  Times  for  April,  19 15.     It  reads  in  part  as  follows;  "At 


Darius  the  Mede  137 

Finally,  it  is  admitted  by  all  that  Gobryas  was 
governor,  or  viceroy  (malka  in  Aramaic),  over  Babylon 
for  a  period  after  its  conquest  by  Cyrus.  Yet  we  have 
no  contract,  nor  other  docimient,  dated  from  his 
reign.  If  then  it  were  a  vaHd  argument  against  the  de 
facto  rule  of  Darius  the  Mede  (over  Babylon)  to  say  that 
no  records  dated  from  his  reign  existed,  so  also  would  it 
be  against  the  rule  of  Gobryas. 

As  to  the  age  of  Darius  the  Mede,  when  he  became 


the  end  of  the  month  Chisleu,  4th  year  of  Cambyses,  king  of  Babylon 
and  the  lands,  Ardia,  son  of  Nabu-bani-ahi,  descendant  of  Remut-Ea, 
the  man  who  is  over  the  date-ofiFerings  of  Ishtar  of  Erech,  will  take  five 
talents  of  early  fruit,  and  deliver  them  in  the  palace  of  the  king,  which 
is  situated  above  E-anha,  to  Nabu-aha-iddina,  the  king's  captain  (lord 
of  E-anna's  contribution).  If  he  does  not  bring  (the  amount),  he  will 
commit  a  sin  against  Gobryas,  governor  of  Babylon  (hitu  5a  Cubaru, 
awel  pihali  Babili,  inamdin)." 

Dr.  Pinches  well  remarks  that  a  failure  to  keep  the  contract  will  be  a 
sin  against  Gobryas,  the  governor,  and  not  against  Cambyses;  and  that 
Gobryas  was  governor  of  Babylon  as  late  as  the  4th  year  of  Cam- 
byses, that  is,  thirteen  years  after  his  conquest  of  that  city  for  Cyrus, 
though  he  may  not  have  been  governor  during  all  of  the  intervening 
time.  Dr.  Pinches  meets  Tide's  objection  to  the  appointment  by  Cyrus 
of  a  Mede  as  governor  of  Babylon  by  saying  that  the  Babylonian 
Chronicle  distinctly  says  that  Gobryas  before  his  conquest  of  Babylon 
was  governor  of  Gutium,  a  part  of  ancient  Media.  It  might  be  added  to 
this,  that  other  Aledes  are  known  to  have  been  appointed  to  high 
commands;  for  Harpagus,  the  greatest  of  the  generals  of  Cyrus,  was  a 
Mede;  and  Takmaspada  and  Datis,  two  of  the  most  distinguished  gen- 
erals of  Darius  Hystaspis,  were  also  Medes. 

The  close  commercial  relationship  existing  between  Babylon  and 
Media  in  the  time  of  Cyrus,  while  Gubaru  was  governor  of  Babylon, 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the  6th  year  of  Cyrus  a  contract  drawn 
up  at  Durgaras,  a  city  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  a  short  distance 
above  Sippar,  calls  for  the  payment  of  interest  at  Ecbatana,  the  capital 
of  Media  (see  Strass.,  Cyrus,  227). 

That  Gubaru,  governor  of  Ecbatana  and  Babylon,  may  have  been 
governor  of  Syria  also,  is  shown  by  a  tablet  from  the  3rd  year  of 
Darius  I,  according  to  which  Ushtanni  was  governor  (pihat)  of  Babylon 
and  of  Syria  {ebtr  nari)  at  the  same  time  (see  Strass.,  Darius,  82). 


138  The  Book  of  Daniel 

king,  we  know  nothing  absolutely  explicit,  except  the 
statement  of  Daniel  v,  31,  that  he  was  at  that  time 
about  sixty-two  years  of  age.  With  this  accord 
the  statements  of  Xenophon  with  regard  to  Gobryas, 
that  when  he  went  over  to  Cyrus,  he  had  a  marriageable 
daughter;'  and  that  some  time  before  this,  his  grown 
son  had  been  killed  by  the  king  of  Assyria  (i.  ^.,  Baby- 
lon).^ 

But  someone  will  say,  how  do  you  explain  the  fact 
that  Daniel  gives  the  name  Darius  to  a  man  whom  the 
other  documents  call  Gobryas?  Many  kings  in  ancient, 
as  well  as  modern,  times  had  two  or  more  names ;  espe- 
cially a  pre-regnal  and  a  regnal  name.  The  Rameses  II, 
king  of  Egypt,  seems  to  be  the  same  as  the  Sesostris  of 
the  Greeks.  ^  So  Solomon  is  the  same  as  Jedidiah  and 
Uzziah  the  same  as  Azariah.  But  coming  nearer  to  the 
time  of  Cyrus,  we  find  that  Cyrus  himself  according  to 
Strabo  was  called  Agradetes  before  he  became  king,  and 
Herodotus  says  that  his  first  name  was  not  Cyrus.  ^ 
Josephus  says  that  Artaxerxes  was  called  Cyrus  before 
he  became  king.^  Darius  Nothus  and  Artaxerxes  III 
were  both  called  Ochus  before  they  became  kings  ;^  and 
the  last  Darius,  Codomannus.^  Why  may  not  the 
name  Darius  have  been  assumed  first  of  all  by  Gobryas 
the  Mede,  when  he  became  king  of  Babylon?  When 
Tiglath-Pileser  was  proclaimed  king  of  Babylon,  and 

^  Cyropcedia,  iv,  vi,  10.  '  Id.,  Iv,  vi,  2-7. 

3  On  the  Egyptian  documents,  Sesostris  is  found  perhaps  but  twice, 
and  then  with  different  spellings,  {Setesn  and  Sesetsn)  among  the  almost 
innumerable  titles  and  monuments  of  this  king.  (Brugsch  and  Bouriant, 
Le  Livre  des  Rois,  and  the  author's  articles  on  Royal  Titles  in  Anti- 
quity in  PTR  for  1904-5.)  Prof.  Sethe  regards  this  title  as  belonging 
to  Usertesen. 

*  I,  113.  5  Antiq.y  xi,  vi,  I.  ^  Ctesias,  sec.  49. 

">  Diodorus  Siculus,  xxii,  5,  7. 


Darius  the  Mede  139 

the  other  Assyrian  kings  who  adopted  a  policy  similar  to 
his,  they  often  ruled  as  kings  in  Babylon  under  names 
different  from  those  which  they  had  as  kings  of  Assyria. 
Thus  Tiglath-Pileser  IV  of  Assyria  was  Pxil  in  Baby- 
lon. '  Shalmaneser  III,  king  of  Assyria,  was  Ululai  king 
of  Babylon ;  and  Ashurbanipal  king  of  Assyria  was  pos- 
sibly Kandalanu  king  of  Babylon. 

If  we  could  only  be  sure  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Darius,  we  might  understand  better  why  the 
name  was  given,  or  assumed,  as  a  royal  or  princely 
appellation.  The  first  part  of  the  name  may  be  the 
same  as  the  New  Persian  dard,  "king. "  Or  the  name 
may  be  derived  from  the  Old  Persian  verb  dar,  ''io 
hold,''  and  may  mean  simply  "holder  of  the  scepter. " 
According  to  Spiegel,^  Bartholomae,^  and  Tolman,^  it 
comes  from  dar,  ''to  hold,''  and  a  hypothetical  vahu 
(Sansc,  vasu),  "good  wealth*';  hence  "possessor  of 
wealth.  '*  The  title  in  either  case  would  be  appropriate 
to  Gobryas  as  sub-king  of  Babylon,  and  also  to  the 
royal  son  of  Hystaspis,  who  was  by  birth  a  king,  second 
in  rank  and  race  to  Cyrus  alone.  ^ 

Or,  Darius  may  be  the  Persian  equivalent,  or  trans- 
lation, of  the  Assyrian  Gubaru.  Herodotus  says  that 
it  means  Ip^sfYjq  ^'coercitor,"  a  sense  to  be  derived  from 
the  Persian  dar  *'wehren"  or  "zwingen,"  This  deriva- 
tion would  favor  the  opinion  that  Gubaru  in  the  sense 
of  Gewaltthdter  was  a  translation  of  Darius.  An  indica- 
tion that  favors  their  equivalence  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  the  daughter  of  Gobryas,  according  to  Xeno- 

'Winckler,  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria^  p.  115,  and  Johns  in 
PSBA  for  1916. 

^Die  Altpersischen  Keilinschriften,  p.  81. 
3  Altiranisches  Worterbuch,  738. 
^Ancient  Persian  Lexicon,  pp.  83  and  107. 
5  Behistun  Inscription,  lines  2  and  3. 


140  The  Book  of  Daniel 

phon,  ^  married  Hystaspis,  and  that  the  son  of  Hystaspis 
was  called  Darius.  This  name  is  not  met  with  among 
the  royal  descendants  of  Achasmenes  before  this  time. 
If  Darius  Hystaspis  was  not  called  after  an  ancestor 
on  his  father's  side,  what  more  natural  than  that  he 
should  have  been  named  after  his  maternal  grandfather? 
While  saying  this,  I  am  aware  that  there  are  difficulties 
connected  with  believing  that  the  daughter  of  Gobryas 
could  have  been  the  mother  of  Darius  Hystaspis; 
difficulties  arising,  however,  from  our  ignorance  of  the 
time  when  Hystaspis  married  this  wife,  and  from  our 
ignorance  of  the  age  of  Darius  Hystaspis  when  he 
became  king  of  Persia.  For  the  marriage  of  Hystaspis 
and  for  the  age  of  Darius  when  he  became  king,  we 
have  to  depend  upon  the  Greek  historians;  and  the 
Greek  historians  give  discrepant  statements.  Assum- 
ing, however,  that  Gobryas'  daughter  was  Darius 
Hystaspis'  mother,  it  would  afford  a  ground  for  assum- 
ing that  Gobryas  was  either  the  equivalent  of  Darius, 
or  that  Gobryas  bore  the  name  of  Darius  also.  For  it 
was  customary  to  transmit  names  of  fathers  to  their 
grandsons;  e.  g.,  the  grandfather  of  Cyrus  was  Cyrus, 
and  both  the  father  and  the  son  of  Cyrus  were  named 
Cambyses.  *  So  Artaxerxes  the  Second  was  the  son  of 
Darius  the  son  of  Artaxerxes  the  First  and  Darius  the 
Second  was  the  great-grandson  of  Darius  Hystaspis.^ 
Among  the  Achaemenidae  we  have  the  names 
of  five  Dariuses,  three  of  whom  were  kings,  two  kings 
named  Xerxes,  and  three  named  Artaxerxes.  Of  the 
Seleucids,  who  succeeded  them,  there  were  seventeen 
who  bore  the  name  of  Antiochus.    All  of  the  Arsacids, 

«  Cyropadiaf  viii,  iv,  25.  »  Cyrus  Cylinder,  lines  20,  21. 

5  Inscription    of    Artaxerxes  Jvlnemon  in    Bezold,   AcMmenidenin' 
schriften.  No.  xvii,  and  Weisabach,  Die  Keilinschriften  der  Achdmeniden. 


Darius  the  Mede  141 

the  successors  of  the  Seleucids,  took  the  regnal  name  of 
Arsaces.  Of  the  twenty-nine  kings  of  Edessa,  ten  were 
named  Abgar  and  ten  Ma'nu. ' 

While  such  examples  do  not  prove  that  Gobryas  was 
also  named  Darius,  they  do  afford  a  presumption  in 
favor  of  the  probability  that  he  was;  and  in  view  of  the 
other  indications  in  its  favor,  they  should  deter  anyone 
from  asserting  that  Gobryas  and  Darius  the  Mede  were 
not  the  same. 

But  was  Gobryas  a  Mede?  He  is  called*  the  '*atnel 
pihat  mati  Gutium/*  i.  e.,  the  governor  of  the  land  of 
Gutium.  Now,  according  to  the  Cyrus  Cylinder  (line 
13),  Cyrus  conquered  Gutium  (Kuti)  the  totality  of  the 
host  of  the  Manda  {umman-Manda) ,  If  Manda  and 
Madai  are  the  same,  Gobryas  their  governor  would  prob- 
ably be  a  Mede.  Moreover,  Gutium  which  certainly  lay 
at  the  foot  of  the  pass  that  led  from  Nineveh  to  Ecba- 
tana,  the  capital  of  the  Medes,  must  have  been  looked 
upon  by  the  dwellers  in  Babylon  as  embracing  Media 
also,  since  in  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle,  Obv., 
B.  2,  Ecbatana  is  called  the  capital  of  Astyages,  the 
king  of  Gutitun.  So  that  it  would  be  quibbling  to 
deny  that  Gobryas  might  justly  have  been  called  a 
Mede. 

There  remains  one  point  to  be  explained.  Darius 
the  Mede  is  said  to  have  placed  over  the  kingdom  one 
hundred  and  twenty  satraps,  who  should  be  in  all  the 
kingdom."'  This  accords  with  the  statement  of  the 
Annals  of  Nabunaid,  that  Gobryas  appointed  pihati 
in  Babylon.  Notice  that  neither  in  the  Bible,  nor  on 
the  monuments,  is  anything  said  about  the  appointment 
of  satraps  in  Persia,  but  in  Babylon  or  Chaldea.    Now, 

'  The  Doctrine  of  Addat,  by  Phillips,  note  on  p.  X. 

^Anitals  of  Nabunmd,  Column  iii,  line  15,  ,  »  Dan.  vi,  i. 


142  The  Book  of  Daniel 

since,  in  the  first  verse  of  Esther,  it  is  said  that  in  the 
time  of  Xerxes  there  were  an  hundred  and  twenty- 
seven  provinces  of  the  Persian  empire,  it  has  been 
assumed  that  in  Daniel,  there  is  a  confusing  of  the 
Dariuses,  and  that  this  confusion  is  an  evidence  of  late 
origin  for  the  book. 

But  notice,  first,  that  nothing  is  said  in  Daniel  about 
*' provinces";  and  that  even  if  there  were,  the  word 
used  in  Esther  for  province,  njnc,  is  a  difficult  one 
to  define  closely.  It  may  mean  "province"  or  *' sa- 
trapy, "  as  in  Esther  i,  i.  It  may  also  mean  "city, "  as 
commonly  in  Syriac  and  Arabic,  and  probably  in 
Daniel  iii,  i,  2,  and  I  Kings  xx,  14.  In  the  latter, 
place,  it  is  said  that  Ahab  gathered  two  hundred 
and  thirty-two  sons  of  the  princes  of  the  provinces.^ 
It  would  be  impossible  to  suppose  that  these  provinces 
were  of  large  extent.  Would  not  "judicial  district, "  or 
*'Gerichtsbezirk''  of  whatever  size,  express  the  original 
meaning  of  Medina? 

Again,  the  word  satrap  is  ambiguous.*  Taking 
Haug's  derivation  as  the  correct  one,  it  meant  origi- 
nally simply  "land  protector."  As  to  the  character 
of  the  duties,  and  especially  as  to  the  extent  of  the  land 
ruled  over,  the  word  itself  gives  us  no  clue.  Besides, 
the  writer  of  Daniel  applies  the  term  to  the  officers  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  ^  so  that,  in  his  view  at  least,  the  terra 
cannot  have  meant  merely  governor  of  a  Persian  sat- 
rapy. Moreover,  according  to  Xenophon's  Cyropcedia, 
Cyrus  appointed  at  first  only  six  satraps;  and  these 
were  sent  to  rule  over  only  a  small  part  of  his  domin- 
ions. 4    Darius  Hystaspis  says,  in  the  Behistun  Inscrip- 

»  Naaray  saray  hani'deenoth. 

=  For  a  full  discussion  of  tlie  term  satrap,  see  Chap  IX,  iii,  2,  (2). 

3  Dan.  iii,  2,  3,  27.  4  Bk.  VIII,  6. 


Darius  the  Mede  143 

tion,  that  twenty- three  countries  were  subject  to  him, 
and  he  mentions  the  names  of  the  **  lands. "' 

In  the  Naqs-i-Rustam  inscription  of  the  same  Darius 
thirty-two  different  provinces  are  mentioned.  In 
Strassmaier*s  Darius j  ^2^  Ushtanni  is  called  governor  of 
Babylon  and  Syria  {ehir  nari)  and  in  his  inscription 
on  Cyrus,  22'jy  the  interest  of  a  sum  of  gold  borrowed 
in  the  land  of  Ailtamma  Durgash  is  said  to  have  been 
payable  in  Ecbatana.  *  Now,  Gobryas  was  governor 
of  Gutium  (which  at  this  time  included  Ecbatana) 
when  he  conquered  Babylon.  When  he  became 
governor  of  Babylonia,  his  dominion  would  extend 
over  all  the  country  from  the  mountains  of  Media  to 
the  deserts  of  Arabia.  If,  like  Ushtanni,  he  was  sat- 
rap of  Syria  also,  his  government  could  extend  to  the 
Mediterranean.  How  many  satraps,  or  pihati,  he 
would  find  necessary  to  help  govern  such  a  territory 
at  such  a  time  of  conquest,  we  might  safely  leave  to 
his  judgment  of  the  circumstances.  ^ 

Conclusion 

From  the  above  evidence  it  is  clear  that  the  author  of 
Daniel  does  not  state,  nor  even  intimate,  that  Cyrus 
succeeded  Darius  the  Mede  in  the  empire  of  Babylon. 
On  the  contrary,  he  indicates  that  Darius  the  Mede 
received  from  Cyrus  his  overlord  the  kingdom  of  Bel- 

*  Bezold's,  Achdmenideninschriften,  p.  33,  lines  4-7. 

'  The  document  is  dated  the  i6th  Aim,  6th  year  of  Cyrus,  king  of 
Babylon,  king  of  lands. 

3  Furthermore,  if  this  extensive  rule  belonged  to  Gobryas,  who  can 
say  that  one  of  the  pihatis  was  not  a  man  named  Darius,  and  that  this 
Darius  was  not  the  malka  of  the  city  or  province  of  Babylon? 

Finally,  in  this  connection,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  verb  which 
is  employed  in  the  Annals  of  Nabxmaid,  in  the  phrase  "  Gobryas  his 
[t.  f.,  Cyrusl  pihatu  appointed  pihatis^''  is  of  the  same  root  as  that 


144  The  Book  of  Daniel 

shazzar  the  Chaldean,  which  at  best  constituted  but 
a  small  portion  of  the  empire  of  the  Persians.  The 
monumental  evidence  shows  the  possibility  of  120 
satraps  being  installed  in  the  province  of  Babylonia, 
alone.  This  evidence  shows,  also,  that  dual  datings 
were  common  among  the  ancient  nations,  and  that 
hence  Cyrus  and  Darius  the  Mede  may  have  been 
reigning  at  the  same  time,  one  as  overlord  and  the  other 
as  sub-king,  or  viceroy.  It  is  pure  conjecture  to  suppose 
that  the  author  of  Daniel  "evidently  thought  that 
Darius  the  Mede  preceded  Cyrus  the  Persian,"  or  that 
he  ''believed  that  Cyrus  succeeded  to  the  empire  of 
Babylon  on  the  death  of  the  Median  Darius,"  rather 
than  on  its  conquest  from  Nabunaid  and  Belshazzar. 

employed  of  Ahab  in  2  Kings  xx,  15  where  he  is  said  to  have  mustered 
{paqad)  the  young  men  of  the  princes  of  the  provinces.  The  same  verb 
and  form  were  employed  by  Darius  Hystaspis  in  the  Babylonian  re- 
cension of  the  Naqs-i-Rustam  inscription,  line  22,  where  he  says 
"Ahuramazda  appointed  me  to  be  king  over  them."' 

*  Anaku  ina  muhhishina  ana  sharruti  iptek  idanni. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  MEDES  AND  THE  CONQUEST  OF  BABYLON 

One  of  the  worst  errors  of  the  modem  critics  is 
their  supposing  that  one  can  posit  the  soiirces  from 
which  a  writer  who  lived  two  thousand  or  more  years 
ago  must  have  derived  his  information.  The  compla- 
cence and  self-assurance  with  which  a  knowledge  of 
such  sources  is  assimied  might  be  dismissed  with  a 
smile,  were  it  not  that  these  suppositions  are  often  put 
forward  as  arguments  to  prove  a  proposition.  It  seems 
marvelous  that  anyone  to-day  should  fail  to  recognize 
that  the  ancient  writers  of  history,  whether  sacred 
or  profane,  had  access  to  many  documentary  sources 
that  have  long  since  ceased  to  exist.  Many  of  these  writ- 
ers claim  that  they  used  such  sources.  Thus,  in  the  in- 
troduction to  his  Expedition  of  Alexander,  Arrian  says 
that  he  made  use  of  the  works  of  Ptolemy,  the  first  king 
of  Egypt,  and  of  Aristobulus,  both  of  whom  accompanied 
Alexander  on  his  campaigns,  and  also  of  many  others 
whose  names  he  does  not  mention.  Josephus,  in  his 
treatise  Contra  Apion,  gives  the  names  of  about  forty 
historians  of  different  nations  from  whom  he  culled  his 
statements;  and  he  asserts  again  and  again  that  a 
large  part  of  the  material  used  by  him  had  been  derived 
either  by  himself  or  by  his  authorities  directly  from  writ- 
ten official  records  possessed  by  the  Egyptians,  Baby- 
'»  145 


146  The  Book  of  Daniel 

lonians,  Tynans,  and  Jews.  Polybius  gives  the  names 
of  more  than  twenty  historians  from  whom  he  derived 
his  facts.  Pliny  the  younger,  in  the  first  book  of  his 
Natural  History,  gives  the  names  of  the  sources  of  each 
book  that  follows.  For  the  fifth  book,  which  contains 
his  account  of  Palestine,  he  mentions  the  names  of 
sixty  historians  and  others  from  whom  he  derived  his 
information;  and  for  the  whole  thirty-seven  books  he 
names  hundreds  of  authorities.  It  is  noteworthy,  also, 
that  neither  of  the  historians  named  as  the  sources  of 
Arrian  is  mentioned  by  either  Josephus,  Polybius,  or 
Pliny;  and  that  each  of  the  three  last  named  gives  among 
his  sources  the  names  of  some  who  were  not  appar- 
ently used  by  the  others.  .  Further,  it  will  be  noted 
that  many  of  the  authorities  used  by  Polybius,  Josephus, 
and  Pliny,  for  their  information  about  Persia,  Egypt, 
Syria,  and  Palestine,  are  historians  who  lived  and  wrote 
long  before  the  second  century  b.  c,  and  hence  were 
very  near  to  the  time  of  the  events  they  narrate.  Fur- 
thermore, both  Polybius  and  Josephus  affirm  that  they 
themselves  had  access  to  and  frequently  consulted 
official  records  that  had  been  preserved  to  their  time; 
and  Josephus  reiterates  the  fact  that  his  chief  author- 
ities made  use  of  the  archives  of  the  respective  countries 
whose  histories  they  had  written.  Thus  of  Manetho 
he  says  that  *'he  was  a  man  who  was  by  birth  an 
Egyptian,  yet  had  made  himself  master  of  the  Greek 
learning,  as  is  very  evident;  for  he  wrote  the  history  of 
his  own  country  in  the  Greek  tongue,  by  translating  it, 
as  he  says  himself,  out  of  the  sacred  records."'  Of 
Dius,  he  says  that  he  was  "one  that  is  believed  to  have 
written  the  Phenician  History  after  an  accurate  man- 
ner," and  of  Menander  the  Ephesian,  that  he  "wrote 
»  Cont.  Ap.,  i,  14. 


The  Conquest  of  Babylon  147 

the  axjts  that  were  done  by  the  Greeks  and  Barbarians 
under  every  one  of  the  Syrian  kings;  and  had  taken 
much  pains  to  learn  their  historj'  out  of  their  own 
records. "'  Of  Berosus,  he  says  that  '*he  was  by  birth 
a  Chaldean,  well  known  to  the  learned,  on  account  of 
his  publication  among  the  Greeks  of  the  Chaldean 
books  of  astronomy  and  philosophy.  This  Berosus, 
therefore,  following  the  most  ancient  records  of  the 
nations,  gives  us  a  history."*  Moreover,  many  other 
eminent  authors  who  wrote  in  the  Greek  language  were 
known  to  Josephus,  such  as  Ephorus  (400  to  330  b.  c), 
Theopompus  (380  to  330  (?)  b.  c),  Hecataeus  (6th- 
5th  cent.  B.  c),  Herodotus  (464  to  424  B.  c.)i  and  Thu- 
cydides  (471-400  b.  c).  A  certain  Castor,  also,  is 
named  by  him  as  one  of  his  authorities,  a  man  so  ut- 
terly unknown  to  the  classical  writers  that  his  name 
even  is  not  given  in  Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek  Diction- 
ary, in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  nor  in  the  classical 
dictionaries. 

From  all  this,  it  will  be  perfectly  evident  that  all  edu- 
cated men  living  in  and  before  the  second  century  b.  c. 
must  have  had  access  to  so  much  information  with 
regard  to  the  number  and  history  of  the  Babylonian  and 
Persian  kings,  as  to  render  it  highly  improbable  that 
any  writer  of  the  second  century  b.  c.  could  have  been 
as  ignorant  of  the  history  of  Persia  as  certain  critics 
represent  the  writer  of  Daniel  to  have  been.  Besides, 
if  he  himself  had  been  as  ignorant  of  the  facts  about 
which  he  wrote  as  the  critics  represent  him  to  have 
been,  how  could  he  have  palmed  off  his  work  on  the 
Jews  of  that  period  as  genuine  and  authentic  ?  Accord- 
ing to  the  critics  themselves,  it  was  the  time  of  the  two 
Ben-Siras,  and  of  the  authors  of  Tobit,  Judith,  First 

»  CorU,  Ap.,  i,  17.  « Cont.  Ap,,  i,  19. 


148  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Maccabees,  the  Letter  of  Aristeas,  and  many  other  liter- 
ary compositions,  so  that  in  such  an  atmosphere,  it  is 
not  likely  that  an  author  of  the  ability  of  the  writer 
of  the  Book  of  Daniel  could  have  had  no  knowledge  of 
the  history  of  Persia,  except  what  he  learned  from  the 
Jewish  Scriptures;  and  it  is  especially  unlikely  that 
the  Jews  of  that  time  would  have  failed  to  recognize  the 
alleged  historical  inaccuracies  of  the  book,  did  they 
exist;  and  to  reject  it  as  they  did  reject  Tobit,  Judith, 
and  other  works. 

But  after  having  made  this  great  and  yet  absolutely 
unprovable  assumption  that  it  can  now  be  known  what 
sources  of  information  a  writer  of  the  second  century 
B.  c.  may  have  had  before  him,  the  critics  go  a  step 
farther  and  assert  that  the  author  of  Daniel  can  have 
had  but  a  "dim  consciousness"  of  the  events  of  the 
sixth  century  B.  c,  of  which  he  on  his  part  assumes  to 
speak.  Now,  whatever  opinion  one  may  have  with  re- 
gard to  the  writer  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  it  seems  certain 
that  the  very  last  impression  one  could  derive  from 
the  book  itself  would  be  that  the  writer  himself  felt 
that  he  had  a  dim  and  uncertain  knowledge  of  the  events 
which  he  narrates.  Few  writers  are  more  vivid,  more 
circumstantial,  or  more  given  to  detail.  Few  writings 
bear  on  their  face  clearer  indication  of  being  the  narra- 
tion of  an  eye-witness.  No  document,  whether  a  fic- 
titious or  a  real  story  could  more  manifestly  purport 
to  contain  the  actual  words  and  deeds  of  the  chief 
actor  around  whom  the  plot  centered.  The  writer 
was  certainly  not  oppressed  with  the  sense  of  having 
but  a  dim  consciousness  of  the  things  of  which  he 
writes.  Perhaps,  after  all,  it  is  we  to-day  who  have  the 
dim  consciousness  of  the  times  and  events  and  persons 
that  he  describes  so  graphically, — a  dim  consciousness, 


The  Conquest  of  Babylon  149 

a  very  limited  and  uncertain  knowledge,  of  what  trans- 
pired at  the  time  when  the  sun  of  Babylon's  glory  rose 
in  splendor  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  or  when  it  set 
amid  the  shame  and  confusion  of  Nabunaid  and  his 
first-bom  son.  Until  this  dimness  be  dispelled  and 
this  darkness  enlightened  by  documentary  evidence 
we  shall  be  compelled  to  believe  the  writer  of  Daniel 
most  probably  knew  more  about  the  subject  than  any 
one  of  us  to-day  with  the  evidence  at  our  disposal  can 
ever  possibly  know.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  works 
of  Herodotus,  Ctesias,  Berosus,  Menander,  and  many 
others  which  treated  of  the  affairs  of  Assyria,  Babylonia, 
and  Persia,  may  have  been  known  to  a  writer  of  the  sec- 
ond century  B.  c,  how  can  any  man  have  the  assur- 
ance to  assert  that  the  author  of  Daniel  must  have 
believed  that  the  Medes  without  the  assistance  of  the 
Persians  must  have  captured  Babylon?  How  can  any- 
one know  that  he  derived  his  information  as  to  the  cap- 
tm-e  of  Babylon  from  the  slender  hints  of  Isaiah  xiii  and 
xxi  and  Jeremiah  li  alone,  that  the  author  of  Daniel 
possessed  but  a  dim  consciousness  of  the  fact  that  the 
Persian  empire  had  grown  out  of  the  Median  kingdom, 
or  that  a  Darius  really  did  capture  Babylon?  In  the 
name  of  scholarship  and  for  the  sake  of  truth  and  right- 
eousness, it  is  time  to  call  a  halt  on  all  those  who  presume 
to  a  knowledge  which  they  do  not  possess,  in  order  to 
cast  reproach  upon  an  ancient  writer,  as  to  whose 
sources  of  information  and  knowledge  of  the  facts 
they  must  be  ignorant  and  whose  statements  they  can- 
not possibly  fully  imderstand,  nor  successfully  con- 
tradict. 

It  need  hardly  be  stated  that  the  foregoing  para- 
graphs are  concerned  primarily  with  the  defense  of  the 
historicity,  rather  than  of  the  early  date  of  Daniel.    The 


150  The  Book  of  Daniel 

reader,  however,  will  recognize  that  in  the  subject  dis- 
cussed in  this  chapter,  the  historicity  is  the  principal 
point  of  attack,  and  not  the  date.  For  if  the  author  of 
Daniel  is  incorrect  in  what  he  says  about  the  relations  of 
the  Medes  to  the  conquest  of  Babylon  it  makes  no 
material  difference  when  his  account  of  it  was  written, 
— whether  in  the  sixth  or  in  the  second  century  B.  c. 
But  if  the  work  is  correct  historically,  the  way  is 
then  open  to  discuss  the  date  of  the  composition.  If 
it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  no  sufficient  reason 
for  denying  the  correctness  of  its  historical  statements, 
those  who  believe  in  the  possibility  of  miracles  and 
predictive  prophecy  will  be  free  to  accept  the  early 
date  of  its  composition.  If  on  the  other  hand  it  can  be 
shown  that  the  book  is  wrong  in  its  statements  regard- 
ing ordinary  historical  events,  there  will  be  no  solid 
ground  upon  which  to  base  a  defense  of  its  miracles 
and  predictions,  nor  of  its  authenticity  and  early 
date.  The  historical  statements  may  be  true  without 
being  authentic.  They  cannot  be  authentic  unless 
they  are  trustworthy. 

In  this  chapter,  then,  the  discussion  will  be  confined 
to  the  objections  to  the  historicity  of  Daniel  based 
upon  what  he  is  assumed  to  say  about  the  connection 
of  the  Medes  with  the  conquest  of  Babylon. 

Objection  Stated 

That  the  Medes  must  have  captured  Babylon  is  derived 
from  Isa.  xiii,  17,  xxi,  2,  and  Jer.  li,  11,  28,  in  connec- 
tion with  which  the  author  possessed  a  dim  consciousness 
of  the  fact  that  the  Persian  empire  had  grown  out  of  the 
Median  kingdom  and  that  once  a  Darius  really  did  capture 
Babylon.^ 

»  Coram,  pp.  384,  385. 


The  Conquest  of  Babylon  151 

This  sentence  is  a  possible,  or  even  probable,  explan- 
ation of  how  a  writer  of  the  second  century  B.C.  might 
have  said  that  Babylon  was  taken  by  the  Medes.  But 
as  regards  the  book  of  Daniel,  there  are  four  asstimp- 
tions  in  it. 

Assumptions  Involved 

It  is  assumed  first,  that  Daniel  says  specifically  that 
the  Medes,  apart  from  the  Persians,  conquered  Babylon ; 
secondly,  that  he  derived  this  information  from  certain 
passages  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah ;  that,  thirdly,  the  author 
had  a  dim  consciousness  of  the  fact  that  the  Persian 
empire  had  grown  out  of  the  Median  kingdom;  and 
fourthly,  that  the  writer  of  Daniel  had  as  the  ground 
of  his  statements  with  regard  to  Darius  nothing  more 
substantial  to  build  on  than  a  dim  consciousness  that 
once  a  Darius  really  did  capture  Babylon. 

Answer  to  Assumptions 

I.  With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  assumptions, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  writer  of  Daniel 
might  justly  have  said  that  Babylon  was  taken  by  the 
Medes,  inasmuch  as  Gobryas,  governor  of  Gutium 
(which,  as  will  be  shown  below,  was  in  part,  at  least, 
coextensive  with  Media),  was  the  general  who  while 
commanding  an  army  under  Cyrus  took  Babylon  for 
him.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  Daniel  says  nothing  of 
the  kind.  He  says  simply  that  after  the  death  of 
Belshazzar  the  Chaldean  king,  Darius  the  Mede,  received 
his  kingdom;^  and  again  that  Darius  was  made  king 
over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans.  ^    But  on  the  other 

«  Chapter  v,  31,  » IX,  i. 


152  The  Book  of  Daniel 

hand  Daniel  does  not  say  that  the  Persians  under 
Cyrus  took  Babylon  without  the  assistance  of 
the  Medes.  The  truth  is,  it  was  the  Medes  and 
Persians  who  conquered  Babylon.  If  it  be  granted, 
as  Professor  Sayce,  followed  by  Winckler,  has  contended 
that  Astyages  was  not  a  Mede  but  a  Scythian;  then, 
Cyrus  the  Persian,  and  Harpagus  the  Mede,  rebelled 
against  the  domination  of  the  alien  Scythian,  and 
Cyrus  became  king  of  the  united  peoples,  the  Medes 
and  Persians,  from  that  time  on  one  and  inseparable. 
This  view  harmonizes  with  the  facts  recorded  on  the 
monuments  and  with  the  statements  of  the  Scriptures 
and  of  the  classical  writers. ' 

*  There  is  abundant  evidence  from  the  monuments  to  show  that 
Gutium  was  in  part  at  least  coextensive  with  Media.  For  example, 
the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle  states  expressly  that  Gubani,  the  gover- 
nor of  Gutium,  captured  the  citadel  of  Babylon.  According  to  Winckler, 
in  his  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  (p.  48),  Gutium  was  north  of 
Anzan  and  Susa,  and  corresponded  substantially  to  Armenia  south  of 
Lake  Van,  though  in  his  Untersuchungen,^  he  says  it  was  the  country 
between  the  Euphrates  and  Tigris. »  Again  he  renders  it  by  "North 
Countries."  In  fact,  throughout  all  the  changes  of  population,  the 
part  of  the  world  north  of  Assyria  was  known  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Babylon  and  Assyria  as  Gutium.  In  the  time  of  Naram-Sin,  the  king  of 
Gutium  made  a  dedicatory  offering  in  Babylonia  which  contains  an  in- 
scription written,  like  those  of  Naram-Sin,  in  Babylonian.  Ashurbani- 
pal,  in  his  Annals  (Col.  iii,  103),  speaks  of  the  kings  of  the  land  of 
Guti.  Gubaru,  governor  of  Gutium,  may  justly  have  been  called  gov- 
ernor of  the  Medes,  or  king  of  Guti  in  the  sense  employed  by 
Ashurbanipal. 

A  strong  argument  in  favor  of  Gutium 's  having  been  regarded  by  the 
Babylonians  as  embracing  Media  is  that  Media  is  never  mentioned  on 
the  Babylonian  monuments  before  the  time  of  Xerxes,  that  Gutium  de- 
signates the  region  of  Media  in  the  only  original  Babylonian  document 
mentioning  that  part  of  the  world;  and  that  on  the  other  hand,  Gutium 
is  not  mentioned  on  the  Behistun  Inscription,  but  Mada  denotes  the 
region  denoted  earliar  by  the  Babylonian  word  Gutium.  A  modem 
illustration  of  different  names  for  the  same  country  is  Germany,  Alle- 

'Page  131.  *  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pSLge  124. 


The  Conquest  of  Babylon  153 

Inasmuch,  then,  as  Herodotus^  makes  Astyages  to 
have  been  king  of  Media  and  his  capital  city  to  have 
been  Ecbatana  and  the  revolted  troops  to  have  been 
Medes;  and  as  the  inscriptions  make  him  to  have 
been  king  of  Guti,  or  Gutium,  the  revolted  troops 
to  have  been  the  host  of  Manda,  his  capital  city  to 
have  been  Ecbatana,  and  Gobryas  to  have  been  the 
successor  of  Astyages  in  the  government  of  Gutium, 
though  as  subordinate  to  Cyrus  the  conqueror  of  Asty- 
ages; and  finally,  inasmuch  as  this  Gobryas  the  successor 
of  Astyages  king  of  Media,  or  of  the  host  of  the  Manda, 
is  said  in  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle  to  have  cap- 
tured Babylon  for  Cyrus ;  it  is  not  far  fetched  to  suppose 
that  Gobryas  may  have  been  called  by  his  subjects,  at 
least  in  the  Aramean  tongue,  the  king  of  the  Medes,  and 
that  his  soldiers,  his  subjects,  and  himself,  may  have 
been  called  in  the  same  tongue  Medes. 

magne,  Deutschland ;  an  ancient,  Hellas,  Graecia,  land  of  the  Javanites. 
A  more  ancient  still  is  Elam,  which  appears  in  other  languages  under 
the  names  of  Uwaga,  Hatamtup,  and  Susiana.  Again,  it  seems  clear 
from  the  references  to  the  destruction  of  Astyages  by  Cyrus,  which  we 
find  in  the  Babylonian  documents,  that  Gutium  and  Media  were  the 
same  country  in  the  estimation  of  the  writers  of  those  documents. 
Thus,  in  the  Cyrus'  Clay  Cylinder,  13,  it  is  said  that  "Marduk  caused 
the  land  of  Kuti  (Guti)  the  totality  of  the  host  of  the  Manda,  to  bow  at 
the  feet  of  Cyrus."  In  the  Abu  Habba  Cylinder,  we  are  informed  that 
Astyages  the  king  of  the  host  of  Manda,  together  with  his  land  and 
the  kings  his  helpers,  were  no  more,  because  the  host  had  been  scattered 
by  the  small  army  of  Cyrus  king  of  Anzan,  the  little  vassal  of  Astyages; 
and  that  the  latter  had  been  captured  and  taken  prisoner  to  the  former's 
land."  In  the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle  it  is  said  that  the  troops 
revolted  against  Astyages  and  that  he  was  captured  and  delivered  into 
the  hands  of  Cyrus,  who  advanced  to  Ecbatana  the  capital  city,  where 
he  took  silver,  gold,  and  other  spoils  and  carried  them  to  the  land  of 
Anshan.  Later  in  the  same,  it  is  said  that  Gobryas  was  the  governor 
of  Gutium  or  Kuti. 


^  Bk.  I,  107-130.  » Col.  i,  1 1-38. 


154  The  Book  of  Daniel 

It  must  be  remembered  here  that  the  little  we  know 
about  the  Medes  and  Persians  shows  that  there  was  a 
close  relationship  existing  between  them.  According 
to  the  biblical  and  Greek  records,  they  were  sub- 
stantially one  people  in  race  and  language.  On  the 
Behistun  Inscription,  Darius  treats  the  Medes  and 
no  others  as  the  equals  of  the  Persians.  Thus  in 
sections  i,  lo,  ii,  he  speaks  of  Persia  and  Media  and 
the  other  provinces.  In  section  ix,  13,  he  says, 
*' there  was  no  one,  neither  Persian  nor  Mede  nor 
anyone  from  our  family,  who  would  have  wrested  the 
kingdom  from  Smerdis  the  Magian  till  I  came. "  The 
seat  of  Smerdis'  Idngdom  was  at  *  *  Sikayanvatish  in  the 
province  of  Nisaya  in  Media."  Again,  in  section  i, 
14,  Darius  says,  "I  placed  the  people  in  this  place, 
Persia,  Media,  and  the  other  provinces."  Again, 
in  ii,  14,  he  sends  a  Persian  and  a  Median  army  under 
the  command  of  Takhmaspada,  a  Median,  against  an 
uprising  in  Sagartia.  Again,  in  iii,  6,  he  sends  out  the 
Persian  and  the  Median  army  against  an  uprising  in 
Persia  itself.  In  iii,  14,  he  sends  an  army  against 
Babylon  under  command  of  a  Median,  Vindafra  by 
name. 

In  the  Babylonian  contract  tablets  of  the  reign  of 
Xerxes,  we  find  Media  mentioned  along  with  Persia  in 
the  titles  of  a  number  of  the  inscriptions.  For  example, 
in  the  Acts  of  the  8th  Congress  of  Orientalists,  Strass- 
maier  has  given  a  number  of  contracts  from  the  time 
of  Xerxes.  In  No.  19,  the  subscription  reads,  ''Xerxes, 
king  of  Persia  and  Media";  and  in  No.  20,  "Xerxes, 
king  of  Persia  and  of  the  land  of  the  Medes. "  So  also, 
in  vol.  iv.  No.  193  and  No.  194,  of  the  inscriptions 
published  by  the  Vorderasiatische  Gesellschaft  of  Berlin, 
we  find  *' Xerxes,  (king)  of  Persia  and  Media,  king  (?) 


The  Conquest  of  Babylon  155 

of  Babylon  (?)  and  of  the  lands.**'  Evetts,  No.  3, 
reads:  "Xerxes,  king  of  the  land  of  Persia  and  of  the 
land  of  the  Medes."  In  the  Morgan  Collection,  vol.  i, 
85,  we  read:  ''Xerxes,  king  of  the  city  of  Persia  (and) 
of  the  city  of  Media,"  city  being  used  for  country.* 

In  the  Greek  writers  of  the  fifth  century  B.  c.  the  or- 
dinary designation  for  the  people  and  kings  was  Mede, 
not  Persian.^ 

2.  The  second  assumption  is  that  the  author  of 
Daniel  derived  most  of  his  information  about  the 
conquest  of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  from  certain  pas- 
sages in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  These  passages  read  as 
follows : 

"Behold  I  shall  stir  up  the  Medes  against  them,  which 
shall  not  regard  silver**  (Is.  xiii,  17).  "Go  up,  O  Elam, 
besiege,  O  Media,  according  to  the  sighing  thereof  have 
I  made  thee  to  cease*'  (Is.  xxi,  2).  "Make  bright  the 
arrows,  gather  the  shields  Jehovah  hath  stirred  up  the 
spirit  of  the  Medes.  For  his  device  is  against  Babylon 
to  destroy  it"  (Jer.  li,  11).  "Prepare  the  nations  against 
her,  the  kingdoms  of  Ararat,  Minni,  and  Ashkenaz.  .  .  . 
Prepare  against  her  the  nations  with  the  kings  of  the 
Medes,  the  captains  thereof  and  the  rulers  thereof 
...  for  every  purpose  of  Jehovah  shall  be  fulfilled 
against  Babylon"  Qer.  li,  28,  30). 

It  will  be  noted  (i)  that  the  nations  mentioned  in 
these  prophecies  are  Elam,  Media,  Ararat  {i.  e.y  Ar- 
menia),  Minni,   and  Ashkenaz;  of  which  all  except 


"So  also  in  Evetts,  No.  4,  and  VSD  118  and  VI,  181. 

«  See  the  author's  article  on  the  "Titles  of  the  Kings  of  Persia"  in  the 
Festschrift  Eduard  Sachau,  Berlin,  1915. 

3  See,  for  example,  Herodotus  and  Thucydides,  in  numerous  places, 
and  the  writer's  articles  on  the  "Titles  of  Kings  in  Antiquity,"  in  the 
Pres.  and  Ref.  Review  for  1904-5. 


156  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  last  are  frequently  named  on  the  monuments  from 
the  time  of  Shalmanezer  III  to  that  of  Ashurbanipal 
inclusive. ' 

Of  these  countries  Daniel  mentions  Elam  as  a 
province  of  Belshazzar  (viii,  2),  and  speaks  several 
times  of  the  Medes  and  of  Darius  the  Mede;  but  he 
never  speaks  of  the  land,  kingdom,  or  kings  of  the 
Medes,  nor  of  their  captains  and  rulers.  Neither  does 
he  mention  Minni,  Ararat,  or  Ashkenaz.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  refers  to  Persia,  Javan,  Chaldea,  Shushan, 
Ulai,  and  the  plain  of  Dura,  which  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  passages  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  cited  by  Prof. 

*Elam  IS  mentioned  frequently  in  the  inscriptions  from  the  time 
of  Isaiah  {e.  g,,  by  Sargon,  KB  ii,  40;  by  Sennacherib,  KB  102,  104, 
106;  by  Esarhaddon,  KB  128,  144;  by  Ashurbanipal,  KB  ii,  180-214 
passim).  Jeremiah  speaks  of  the  kings  of  Elam  (xxv,  25),  and  of  the 
impending  destruction  of  its  king  and  princes  (xlix,  35-39).  Nebu- 
chadnezzar does  not  mention  it.  Nabunaid  refers  once  to  the  fruit  of 
the  land  of  Elam ;  and  once  to  Ishtar  the  mistress  of  Elam  who  dwells 
in  Susa  (Zehnpfund-Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Konigsinschriften,  p.  276, 
iii,  41,  and  292,  iii,  15).  Darius  Hystaspis  put  down  a  rebellion  in  it, 
which  occurred  shortly  after  his  accession  (Beh.  Insc.  §  16),  and  it  is 
frequently  mentioned  by  the  Persian  kings  as  a  province  of  their  empire. 

Media  is  frequently  named  on  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  from  Shal- 
manezer III  onward  (KB  i,  142,  180,  ii,  7,  18,  128,  132,  146).  It 
occurs  many  times  in  the  Behistun  Inscription  in  the  Babylonian  recen- 
sion as  well  as  in  Persian  and  Susian.  It  is  found  also  on  some  Baby- 
lonian tablets  from  the  first  years  of  Xerxes.  Commonly  elsewhere  on 
the  Babylonian  documents,  Gutium  is  used  to  denote  what  the  Assyrians 
call  Media  (e.  g.,  on  stele  Nab.-Con.  iv,  21,  and  Cyr.-Cyl.,  13  and  31). 
A  third  designation  for  the  country  is  "the  land  of  Ecbatana"  (Nab.- 
Cyr.  Chronicle,  B.  3,  4,  and  Strass.  Cyr.,  60,  16). 

Ararat  as  the  name  of  Armenia  is  common  in  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
from  Shalmanezer's  time  to  that  of  Darius  Hystaspis  (KB  i,  144,  164, 
ii,  6,  18,  146;  Behistun,  §§  26,  52).  Minni  occurs  in  Assyrian  from  the 
time  of  Shalmanezer  to  Ashurbanipal  (KB  i,  146,  178,  ii,  128,  178). 

If  Ashkenaz  be  the  same  as  Asquzai,  it  is  mentioned  twice  in  the 
inscriptions  of  Esarhaddon  (KB  ii,  146.  See  Jeremias,  The  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  East,  i,  283,  and  Knudtzon,  Assyrische 
Cebete  an  den  Sonnengott,  Nos.  23-35). 


The  Conquest  of  Babylon  157 

Comill.  In  view  of  these  facts,  how  can  it  be  said  that 
Daniel  derived  his  information  as  to  the  conquest  of 
Babylon  from  these  soiirces? 

3.  The  third  assumption  admits  that  the  author  of 
Daniel  knew  that  the  Persian  empire  had  grown  out  of 
the  Median  kingdom.  But  Prof.  Comill  asserts  that 
this  knowledge  was  a  **dim  consciousness."  As  to 
what  he  means  by  this  phrase  he  does  not  enlighten 
us,  nor  does  he  give  any  examples,  nor  any  proof  of  it. 
If  he  means  that  the  author  of  Daniel  says  little  explicit 
about  the  relations  existing  between  Media  and  Persia, 
it  will  be  admitted.  Daniel,  indeed,  speaks  of  the  laws 
of  the  Medes  and  Persians, '  and  says  that  Belshazzar's 
kingdom  was  divided  and  given  to  the  Medes  and 
Persians,  *  and  interprets  the  two  horns  of  the  ram  that 
was  seen  in  his  vision  as  denoting  the  kings  of  Media 
and  Persia,  both  horns  springing  from  the  same  head, 
but  the  Persian  being  later  and  higher  than  the  Me- 
dian. ^  He  says  also  that  Daniel  prospered  in  the 
reign  of  Darius  and  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus  the  Persian^; 
and  speaks  of  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  the  Idngs  and  of 
the  third  year  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,^  of  the  first 
year  of  Darius  the  Mede,^  and  of  the  first  year  of 
Darius  the  son  of  Xerxes  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes,  who 
had  been  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans.* 
He  says,  further,  that  this  Darius  the  Mede  received 
the  Chaldean  Kingdom,  when  he  was  about  sixty-two 
years  of  age,'  and  that  he  organized  this  kingdom  for 
governmental  purposes. '°  Finally,  he  speaks  of  a 
"prince  of  Persia""  and  of  "kings  of  Persia."" 

But  all  this  does  not  imply  that  he  had  a  dim  con- 


«  VI,  8,  12,  15. 

»V,  28. 

J  VIII,  3,  20. 

4  VI,  29. 

Sl,2I. 

<*X,  I. 

7X1,   I. 

«IX,  I. 

»VI,  I. 

"VI,  2-4. 

"X,  13,20. 

"X,  13,  XI,  20. 

158  The  Book  of  Daniel 

sciousness  that  the  Persian  empire  had  grown  out  of  the 
Median  kingdom — a  subject  which  he  does  not  propose 
to  state  or  discuss — ^but  rather  an  exact  knowledge  of  the 
fact  that  the  kingdom  of  Darius  the  Mede  had  been 
established  on  the  ruins  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Chal- 
deans which  had  been  conquered  from  Belshazzar. 
For  notice  (i)  that  the  author  of  Daniel  does  not  call 
anyone  *'king  of  Media"  or  *'king  of  the  Medes"; 
(2)  that  he  always  puts  the  Medes  before  the  Persians, 
as  if  he  knew  that  the  Median  hegemony  had  preceded 
the  Persian;  (3)  that  Darius  the  Mede  is  said  to  have 
received  the  kingdom  of  Belshazzar  the  Chaldean;  (4) 
that  he  makes  Cyrus  the  Persian  to  be  the  real  suc- 
cessor to  the  power  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon 
(i,  I,  18,  21,  vi,  29);  (5)  that  he  does  not  purport  to 
discuss  the  origin  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia,  nor  its 
relation  to  Media;  (6)  that  he  gives  the  years  of  the 
reigns  of  Belshazzar,  Darius,  and  Cyrus,  and  other 
items  of  information,  which  attest  the  honesty  of  his 
intentions  and  challenge  the  denial  of  his  veracity; 
and  (7)  that  no  evidence  has  been  produced  by  Prof. 
Cornill  to  show  that  he  v/as  either  dishonest  in  his 
intentions,  or  unveracious  in  his  statements. 

4.  The  fourth  assumption  of  Professor  Cornill  is 
that  the  writer  of  Daniel  had  nothing  but  a  dim  con- 
sciousness that  once  a  Darius  really  did  conquer  Bab}^- 
lon.  In  the  following  chapters  it  will  be  shown  that  this 
assumption  is  a  pure  assertion  without  any  proof  and 
incapable  of  proof. 

Conclusion 

The  above  discussion  has  shown  that  the  book  of 
Daniel  does  not  state  that  the  Medes  conquered  Baby- 


The  Conquest  of  Babylon  159 

Ion  apart  from  the  Persians;  nor  that  the  Persians  con- 
quered Babylon  without  the  assistance  of  the  Medes. 
Hence,  there  is  no  cause  for  assuming  that  the  writer 
had  nothing  but  a  dim  consciousness  that  once  a  Darius 
did  conquer  Babylon,  inasmuch  as  the  statements  of 
the  book  are  in  absolute  harmony  with  the  facts  made 
known  from  other  sources. 


CHAPTER  IX 

DARIUS  THE  MEDE  AND  THE  KINGS  OF  PERSIA 

In  this  and  the  following  chapters,  will  be  considered 
a  number  of  objections  against  the  book  of  Daniel  on 
the  allegation  that  it  is  clear  that  the  author  was 
deficient  in  knowledge  or  confused  in  thought.  I  shall 
endeavor  to  show  that  these  objections  are  based, 
not  upon  what  the  author  really  says,  but  upon  false 
interpretations  of  what  he  says.  These  false  interpre- 
tations arise  partly  from  wrong  definitions  of  terms, 
partly  from  a  misinterpretation  of  the  meaning  of 
the  author's  statements,  and  partly  from  the  pure 
creative  imagination  of  the  objectors.  To  the  first 
of  these  belong  the  objections  which  are  based  upon 
wrong  definitions  of  such  words  as  satrap,  peoples, 
nations,  and  tongues;  to  the  second,  the  assumptions 
as  to  the  number  of  the  kings  of  Persia  that  were  known 
to  the  author  of  Daniel,  and  that  are  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament;  to  the  third,  the  assertions  that 
Darius  the  Mede  was  a  reflection  into  the  past  of 
Darius  Hystaspis,  that  the  author  confused  Darius 
Hystaspis  with  Xerxes,  and  with  Darius  Codomannus 
and  that  he  states  that  Alexander  the  Great  repulsed 
an  attack  upon  Greece  made  by  the  last  king  of  Persia. 

Objections  Stated 

When  we  find  him  {i.  e. ,  Daniel)  attributing  to  the  Persian 
empire  a  total  of  only  four  kings  (Dan.  xi,  2;  comp.,  also, 

160 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia      i6i 

vii,  6),  this  clearly  arises  from  the  fact  that  by  accident 
the  names  of  only  four  Persian  kings  are  mentioned  in  the 
0.  T. ;  when  we  find  that  he  makes  the  fourth  of  these  exceed- 
ingly rich,  provoke  a  mighty  war  against  Greece,  and  in  a 
triumphant  repulse  of  this  attack  by  the  Greek  king  Alex- 
ander the  Great  to  be  defeated  and  dethroned — it  is  clear 
that  the  author  has  confused  Xerxes  and  Darius  Hystaspis 
by  making  them  one  and  the  same  person,  and  mistaken  the 
latter  for  Darius  Codomannus. ' 

In  6:i,  the  temptation  to  suspect  a  confusion  (of  Darius 
the  Mede)  with  Darius  Hystaspes — who  actually  organized 
the  Persian  empire  into  "satrapies"  though  much  fewer 
than  120 — is  strong.  Tradition,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted, 
has  here  confused  persons  and  events  in  reality  distinct.* 

"Darius  the  Mede"  must  be  a  reflection  into  the  past  of 
Darius  Hystaspes,  father — not  son — of  Xerxes,  who  had  to 
reconquer  Babylon  in  b.  c.  521  and  again  in  515,  and  who 
established  the  system  of  satrapies,  combined,  not  impossi- 
bly, with  indistinct  recollections  of  Gubaru  (or  Ugbaru), 
who  first  occupied  Babylon  in  Cyrus*  behalf,  and  who,  in 
appointing  governors  there,  appears  to  have  acted  as 
Cyrus'  deputy.* 

Dr.  Driver  further  cites  Prof.  Sayce's  Higher  Criticism 
and  the  Monuments,  pp.  524-537,  as  showing  **that 
the  representations  in  the  book  of  Daniel  are  inconsis- 
tent with  the  testimony  of  the  inscriptions,**  and  *'that 
the  aim  of  the  author  was  not  to  write  history,  in  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  but  to  construct,  upon  a 
historical  basis,  though  regardless  of  the  facts  as  they 
actually  occurred,  edifying  religious  narratives  (or 
'Haggadah'y* 

*  Comill,  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
pp.  385, 386.  ■  Behrmanns,  Daniel,  p.  xix. 

»  Driver,  Lit,  of  the  0,  T.,  p.  500. 
zz 


i62  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Assumptions  Involved 

There  are  here  the  following  assumptions: 

I.  That  the  author  states  that  the  Persian  empire 
had  a  totality  of  only  four  kings. 

II.  That  only  four  Persian  kings  are  mentioned  in 
the  Old  Testament.' 

III.  That  Darius  the  Mede  is  represented  as  abso- 
lute ruler  of  the  Persian  empire  and  as  having  divided 
it  into  120  satrapies.  ^ 

IV.  That  the  author  of  Daniel  supposed  Xerxes  the 
Great  to  be  the  father  and  not  the  son  of  Darius  Hys- 
taspis.  ^ 

V.  That  the  author  of  Daniel  confused  Darius  the 
Mede  with  Darius  Hystaspis.  ^ 

VI.  That  Darius  the  Mede  must  have  been  a  reflec- 
tion into  the  past  of  Darius  Hystaspis.^ 

VII.  That  the  author  confused  Darius  Hystaspis 
and  Xerxes  by  making  them  one  and  the  same  person.  ^ 

VIII.  That  he  mistakes  Darius  Hystaspis  for 
Darius  Codomannus.  ^ 

IX.  That  the  author  states  that  the  attack  of  the 
fourth  king  of  Persia  on  Greece  was  repulsed  by  Alex- 
ander the  Great.  ^ 

Answer  to  the  Assumptions 

I.  The  author  does  not  say  that  the  Persian  empire 
had  only  four  kings.  Daniel  xi,  2,  which  Prof.  Cornill 
cites  to  show  this,  reads  as  follows:  ''And  now  will  I 
show  thee  the  truth.  Behold,  there  shall  stand  up  yet 
three  kings  in  Persia;  and  the  fourth  shall  be  far  richer 

»  See  p.  165.         »  See  p.  172.  a  See  p.  199.  ■♦See  p.  200. 

s  See  p.  221.         «  See  p.  264.  '  See  p.  272.  «  gee  p.  274. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       163 

than  they  all :  and  when  he  is  waxed  strong  through  his 
riches,  he  shall  stir  up  all  against  the  realm  of  Greece.  '* 
Daniel  vii,  6,  with  which  Prof.  Comill  compares  xi,  2, 
reads:  *' After  this  I  beheld,  and,  lo,  another,  like  a 
leopard,  which  had  upon  its  back  four  wings  of  a  bird; 
the  beast  had  also  four  heads;  and  the  dominion  was 
given  to  it." 

I .  It  is  obvious  that  before  this  second  verse  can  even 
be  considered  in  this  connection,  it  must  be  clearly  shown 
that  it  really  refers  to  the  Persian  empire  at  all.  But 
this  cannot  be  clearly  shown.  It  will  only  be  regarded 
as  referring  to  the  Persian  empire  by  those  who  believe 
that  the  third  kingdom  of  DanieFs  prophecies  is  the 
Persian,  rather  than  the  Grecian.  But  this  itself  is  an 
assumption,  which,  while  it  may  be  accepted  by  some, 
cannot  be  proven.  There  are  in  our  opinion  stronger 
reasons  for  holding  that  the  leopard  (or  panther)  of 
the  verse  cited  refers  to  Alexander  the  Great  than 
to  the  Persian  empire.  The  lion  of  verse  4  would  then 
be  the  Babylonian  empire;  the  bear,  the  Persian;  and 
the  leopard,  the  Macedonian.  Certainly,  if  we  accept 
the  view  that  Darius  the  Mede  reigned  contempora- 
neously with  Cyrus  the  Persian  as  a  sub-king  under 
him,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  speaking  of  a 
separate  Median  empire  as  set  forth  in  any  of  the 
visions  of  Daniel.  If  such  a  separate  Median  kingdom 
bd  ruled  out,  the  leopard  must  refer  to  Alexander's 
rapid  conquests.  The  number  four,  used  with  reference 
to  the  wings  and  heads  of  the  beast,  cannot  be  pressed 
further  than  the  figure  of  the  vision  allows.  Daniel 
himself  merely  makes  them  a  part  of  the  wings  of  the 
flying  and  devouring  leopard,  to  which  dominion  was 
given. 

If  this  interpretation  of  vii,  6,  be  admitted,  it  is  obvi- 


i64  The  Book  of  Daniel 

ous  that  it  cannot  be  brought  in  to  show  Daniel's  opin- 
ion as  to  the  number  of  the  Persian  kings.  But,  even  if 
Dan.  vii,  6  did  refer  to  the  Persian  empire,  the  four 
wings  and  four  heads  cannot  possibly  be  used  to  show 
that  Daniel  believed  that  the  empire  of  the  Persians  had 
only  four  kings.  We  repeat,  these  four  wings  and  four 
heads  most  naturally  refer  to  the  rapidity  of  the  move- 
ments and  to  the  voracity  of  the  beast.  The  assump- 
tion that  they  refer  to  four  kings  (an  assumption  which 
is  not  the  obvious  nor  the  most  natural  interpretation), 
and  the  further  assumption  that  the  leopard  refers  to 
the  Persian  empire,  cannot  be  used  to  support  the 
assumption  that  the  author  of  Daniel  **  attributes  to  the 
Persian  empire  a  total  of  only  four  kings. " 

2.  As  to  Daniel  xi,  2,  it  is  certain  that  if  the  writer 
saw  his  vision  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede,  who 
was  a  sub-king,  or  contemporary  ofi  Cyrus,  king  of  Per- 
sia, and  there  were  still  to  be  three  kings  of  Persia  and 
the  fourth  was  to  stir  up  all  against  Greece,  that  the 
three  kings  would  be  in  the  order  of  their  reigns  Cam- 
byses,  the  Pseudo-Smerdis,  and  Darius  Hystaspis.  The 
fourth  king  would  be  either  Darius  Hystaspis,  or  his 
son  and  successor  Xerxes.  It  would  be  the  former  if  we 
begin  to  count  with  Cyrus  as  first;  and  Xerxes,  if  we 
count  Cambyses  as  first.  It  seems,  then,  that  the  most 
Hkely  interpretation  would  make  Darius  Hystaspis  to  be 
the  fourth  king.  This  would  agree  best  with  the  history 
of  the  Persian  expedition  against  Greece  as  recorded  in 
Herodotus,'  where  it  is  stated  positively  that  it  was 
Darius  who  was  the  instigator  of  the  first  war  against 
Greece  which  culminated  at  Marathon;  and  that  he 
prepared  before  his  death  for  the  second  expedition, 
which  was  repulsed  at  Salamis  and  Platasa,  Xerxes 

«Bk.VI. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       165 

himself  being  disinclined  to  the  war.'  To  represent 
Darius  Hystaspis  as  the  arranger  of  these  expeditions 
against  Greece,  harmonizes  with  the  alleged  motive  of 
Alexander's  subsequent  expedition  against  Persia.  For 
Quintus  Curtius, '  says  that  the  cause  of  his  attack  on 
Persia  was  said  by  Alexander  in  a  letter  to  Darius  III 
to  be  that  Darius  I  had  devastated  the  Ionian  colonies  of 
the  Greeks,  had  crossed  the  sea  with  a  great  army  and 
borne  arms  against  Macedonia  and  Greece,  and  that 
Xerxes  had  come  again  with  a  force  of  cruel  barbarians 
to  fight  against  them.  Arrian,  also,  in  his  history  of 
the  expedition  of  Alexander^  gives  a  letter  to  Darius 
Codomannus  in  which  Alexander  says  that  the  cause 
of  his  expedition  against  the  Persians  was  to  take  venge- 
ance on  them  because  their  **  ancestors  having  come 
into  Macedonia  and  the  rest  of  Greece  had  entreated 
them  evilly."  If  Alexander  could  thus  connect  his 
expedition  in  B.  C.  332  with  the  expeditions  of  Darius 
and  Xerxes  of  490-480  B.  c,  and  rightly  so,  why  may 
not  the  prophet  in  vision  have  seen  them  in  this  close 
connection?  At  any  rate,  the  placing  of  the  counter 
movements  of  the  two  empires  in  juxtaposition,  whether 
by  prediction  or  post  eventum^  would  not  prove  that  the 
author  of  Daniel  was  ignorant  of  the  other  kings  of 
Persia,  any  more  than  it  would  prove  that  Alexander 
himself,  or  his  historians,  Curtius  and  Arrian,  were  thus 
ignorant.  No  one  that  knew  the  history  of  the  Persian 
expeditions  against  Greece  could  well  avoid  placing 
them  in  contrast  with  the  Greek  expedition  against 
Persia. 

II.     Prof.  Conlill  states  that  only  four  Persian  kings 

« Id.,  Bk.  VII,  5. 

» Life  and  Exploits  of  Alexander  the  Great,  Bk.  IV,  §  2. 
»  Bk.  II.  §  14. 


i66  The  Book  of  Daniel 

are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  and  implies  that 
the  author  of  Daniel  supposed  from  this  that  Persia 
had  had  only  four  kings.  ^ 

But  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  only  four  Persian 
kings  are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  must  be 
admitted  that  only  four  different  names  of  Persian 
kings  are  found  there.  But  since  there  were  certainly 
three  kings  of  Persia  who  bore  the  name  of  Darius,  let 
alone  others  of  the  name  who  were  not  kings,  such  as 
Darius  the  son  of  Xerxes  mentioned  in  Ctesias,  ^  it  will 
have  to  be  shown  that  the  author  of  Daniel  was  igno- 
rant of  more  than  one  Darius,  before  Prof.  Comill's 
contention  can  be  admitted.  The  sangfroid  with 
which  this  can  be  asserted  without  any  proof  to  estab- 
lish the  assertion  is  astonishing,  to  say  the  least.  Of 
course,  we  admit  that  such  ignorance  on  the  part  of 
the  author  of  Daniel  is  possible,  but  affirm  that  it  is 
very  far  from  probable,  and  most  certainly  far  re- 
moved from  such  a  degree  of  certainty  as  would 
enable  any  cautious  historian  to  calmly  state  it  as  a 
fact,  without  even  so  much  as~a  qualifying  particle. 
If,  as  Prof.  Cornill  believes,  we  know  nothing  about  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  except  that  we  are  com- 
pelled "to  recognize  in  Daniel  the  work  of  a  pious  Jew, 
loyal  to  the  law,  of  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
who  was  animated  with  the  desire  to  encourage  and  sup- 
port his  persecuted  and  suffering  comrades  in  the  faith 
by  the  promise  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  had  nearly 
arrived,"^  how  can  he  be  so  certain  as  to  his  igno- 
rance of  either  Jewish  or  profane  history?  The  author, 
whoever  he  was,  whenever  he  wrote,  must  have 
had    some  means  of    information  as  to  the  history 

»Seep.i6o.  ^  Exc.  Pers,,%  20. 

3  hitroduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  page  388. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       167 

of  Babylon  and  Persia  other  than  that  to  be  derived 
from  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  and  Nehemiah-Ezra,  or 
any  other  known  book  or  writer  of  the  Jews  who  Hved 
before  165  B.  c;  else,  how  could  he  have  known  there 
was  a  Belshazzar  at  all,  especially  since  his  name  even 
is  not  found  in  Herodotus,  Xenophon,  Ctesias,  Berosus, 
or  any  other  known  writer  sacred  or  profane?  As  to 
Nebuchadnezzar,  also,  if  the  author  got  his  information 
from  Jeremiah,  how  can  he  have  said  that  he  made  a 
campaign  against  Jerusalem  in  the  3rd  year  of  Jehoi- 
akim,  if,  as  some  critics  contend,  Jeremiah  states,  or 
implies,  that  his  first  expedition  against  that  city  was  in 
Jehoiakim's  4th  year?  And  if  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel 
were  the  sources  of  his  information,  what  becomes  of  the 
argument  against  the  early  date  of  Daniel,  based  upon 
his  manner  of  spelling  the  name  Nebuchadnezzar?^ 
The  early  Greek  writers,  so  far  as  they  are  known  to  us, 
cannot  have  been  the  source  of  his  knowledge;  for  they 
do  not  even  so  much  as  mention  the  name  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. 

As  to  his  knowledge  of  Darius  the  Mede,  moreover, 
the  author  cannot  have  derived  his  information  from 
the  Jewish  writings,  nor  from  the  profane,  so  far  as  we 
know;  for  there  is  not  one  of  them  who  mentions  such 
a  man,  at  least  under  the  name  of  Darius,  and  with 
the  appellative  **the  Mede."  If  writings  existed  in 
the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  which  described  the 
times  from  Nabopolassar  to  Cyrus,  then  they  must 
either  have  mentioned  Darius  the  Mede,  or  not.  If 
they  did  mention  him,  the  author  of  Daniel  would  on 
this  supposition  and  to  this  extent  be  confirmed  as  to 

*  Nebuchadnezzar  may  be  the  Aramaic  translation  of  the  Babylonian 
Nebuchadrezzar.  Kudur  in  the  sense  of  worshiper  is  the  same  ia 
meaning  as  the  Aramaic  kcdin  or  kedan. 


i68  The  Book  of  Daniel 

his  statements  with  reference  to  him.  If  they  did  not 
mention  him,  then  how  can  this  author  have  supposed 
that  he  might  console  the  Jews  of  his  time  with  an  easily 
exposed  fiction  about  an  imaginary  king?  The  fortu- 
nate escape  from  deadly  perils  of  a  Don  Caesar,  a 
David  Balfour,  a  Count  of  Monte  Christo,  or  any  other 
hero  of  fiction  can  have  no  comfort  for  a  miserable 
person.  The  divine  intervention  in  behalf  of  ^neas, 
as  portrayed  in  the  ^neid,  would  not  inspire  with  the 
expectation  of  a  like  divine  assistance  anyone  who  did 
not  believe  in  the  reality  of  the  wanderings  and  deliver- 
ance of  Anchises*  son.  '  Just  so,  a  supposititious  deliv- 
erance of  an  imaginary  Daniel  from  the  tyrannical  edicts 
of  a  king  of  whose  very  existence  the  Jews  were  not 
aware,  would  be  a  poor  consolation  in  the  midst  of  the 
cruel  torments  of  the  atrocious  Epiphanes.  The  critic 
draws  too  much  on  our  credulity,  when  he  asks  us  to 
believe  that  the  contemporaries  of  the  heroic  Judas 
Maccabeus  would  have  been  encouraged  for  their  deadly 
conflict  by  any  old  wives'  fables,  or  the  cunningly  devised 
craftiness  of  any  nameless  writer  of  fiction,  however  bril- 
liant. People  do  not  die  for  fiction  but  for  faith.  The 
writer  of  the  First  Book  of  Maccabees,  the  best  and  only 
first-class  Jewish  authority  upon  the  history  of  the 
wars  of  the  Jews  against  the  Seleucids,  states  that 
Mattathias  stirred  up  his  followers  to  revolt  against 
the  tyrant  by  an  appeal  to  the  deliverance  of  the  three 
children  from  Nebuchadnezzar's  wrath.  To  have  had 
any  effect  upon  the  auditors,  they  must  not  merely 
have  known  of,  but  have  believed  as  true,  the  story 
to  which  he  appeals  by  way  of  example  to  prove  God's 
interest  in  his  people.  To  have  believed  it,  they  must 
have  known  it.  So,  also,  when  the  writer  of  First  Macca- 
bees uses  the  story  of  the  den  of  lions  and  Daniel's  de- 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       169 

liverance  from  it  to  encourage  his  readers,  not  he  only, 
but  they,  must  have  believed  in  the  actuality  of  that 
story.  This  belief  would  involve  a  belief  in  the  existence 
of  Darius  the  Mede.  This  belief  must  have  been  founded 
upon  some  knowledge  of  him,  as  well  as  of  Daniel.  Such 
a  knowledge  is  best  to  be  accounted  for  by  supposing 
that  the  book  of  Daniel,  certainly  at  least  that  portion 
of  Daniel  which  mentions  him,  or  some  other  book  now 
lost  but  then  known  to  his  readers,  and  from  which  the 
author  of  our  present  book  of  Daniel  derived  his  informa- 
tion, was  in  existence  before  the  time  of  the  Maccabees. 
In  the  absence  of  all  other  books  which  mention  him, 
and  in  view  of  the  generally  admitted  unity  of  the  book, 
and  of  the  claims  of  that  book  to  be  the  record  of  actual 
events  occurring  in  the  life  of  Daniel,  many  of  which 
are  such  as  could  have  been  known  to  him  alone,  we  can 
rest  our  case  as  far  as  the  story  of  Darius  the  Mede  is 
concerned,  by  saying,  first,  that  the  Jews  who  first 
read  the  book  must  have  believed  that  Darius  the  Mede 
existed  and  reigned;  and  secondly,  that  they  must  have 
believed  that  a  Daniel  once  lived  in  the  time  of  that  Dar- 
ius who  suffered  such  indignities  for  God's  sake  and  was 
by  Him  delivered  from  the  tyrant's  power.  But  if  the 
writer  and  his  readers  believed  in  the  existence  of  Darius 
the  Mede,  they  can  scarcely  have  failed  to  have  had 
knowledge  also  of  the  Darius  **the  Persian"  of  Neh.  xii, 
22.  These  Jews  were  fighting  not  merely  for  the  law 
but  for  all  the  sacred  writings.  The  second  book  of 
Maccabees  (chapter  one)  refers  to  Nehemiah,  and 
Jesus  ben  Sira  numbers  him  among  his  great  men  of 
Israel  (ch.  xlix,  13).  The  author  of  Daniel,  if  he  wrote 
after  the  book  of  Nehemiah  was  written,  must  have 
meant  another  king  than  Darius  the  Persian  by  his 
Darius  the  Mede.     He  must  have  known  of  Cyrus, 


I70  The  Book  of  Daniel 

also ;  for  he  mentions  him  by  name  three  times.  He  can 
hardly  have  been  ignorant  of  Xerxes,  son  of  Darius 
Hystaspis;  for  he  is  mentioned  not  merely  in  Esther,  but 
in  Ezra  iv  also.  Nor  can  he  have  been  unacquainted 
with  the  name  of  Artaxerxes, — a  name  occurring 
twelve  times  in  Ezra  and  three  times  in  Nehemiah. 
Since,  then,  all  are  agreed  that  a  writer  living  in  the 
second  century  B.  C.  must  almost  certainly  have  known 
the  names  of  four  kings  of  Persia,  that  is,  Cyrus,  Darius, 
Xerxes,  and  Artaxerxes,  he  who  believes  in  the  assump- 
tion that  he  knew  only  one  each  of  the  kings  who  bore 
these  names  must  assume  also: 

(i)  That  the  writer  of  Daniel  can  have  thought 
that  all  of  the  kings  of  Persia  mentioned  in  the  books 
of  Ezra-Nehemiah,  Haggai,  and  Zechariah  under  the 
name  of  Darius  were  the  same  person. 

(2)  That  he  must  have  been  ignorant  of  Cambyses, 
of  the  Pseudo-Smerdis,  of  two  of  the  three  kings  named 
Artaxerxes,  of  two  of  the  three  kings  named  Darius, 
and  of  Xerxes  II,  Sogdianus,  and  Arses. 

(3)  That  he  must  have  thought  either  (a)  that 
Darius  the  Mede  was  a  king  of  Persia  and  the  same  as 
the  Darius  of  Ezra-Nehemiah  and  as  the  Darius  of 
Haggai-Zechariah,  and  that  these  last  two  Dariuses 
were  the  same  person,  or  (b)  that  Darius  the  Mede  was 
a  Median  king  who  succeeded  the  Chaldean  kings  and 
preceded  the  Persian  kings  as  monarch  of  the  Babylon- 
ian empire,  or  finally  (c)  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  a 
sub-king  under  Cyrus,  who  succeeded  Belshazzar  as 
king  of  Babylon,  or  of  the  Chaldeans,  or  of  both  the 
Babylonians  and  Chaldeans. 

That  is,  the  assumption  that  the  writer  of  Daniel 
knew  of  only  four  kings  of  Persia  would  involve  the 
assumptions  one,  two,  and  three  (a),  (b),  or  (c).     Not 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       171 

merely  one  of  the  three  assumptions  but  the  first  two 
and  one  of  the  suppositions  under  three.  That  Darius 
the  Mede  was  a  Median  king  who  became  monarch  of 
the  Babylonian  empire  before,  and  independent  of, 
Cyrus  [(3)  (b)  above],  is  supported  by  no  good  evidence; 
and  claimed  nowadays  by  no  one.  So  we  may  rule 
it  out. 

Can  we  suppose  that  in  an  age  when  Jewish  scholars 
who  knew  Greek  were  flourishing  in  Egypt  and  Syria 
and  Babylonia,  that  these  Grsecized  Jews  would  be  so 
ignorant  of  the  classical  Greek  historians  as  to  accept 
as  genuine  and  canonical  the  work  of  an  author  who 
thought  that  there  had  been  only  four  kings  of  Persia? 
Can  we  suppose  that  the  educated  Jews  of  Egypt 
were  so  ignorant  of  the  Egyptian  history  and  monu- 
ments as  not  to  know  that  from  Cambyses  to  Darius 
Codomannus  there  had  been  many  Persian  kings  who 
ruled  over  Egypt,  among  them  three  Dariuses?' 

Can  we  believe  that  among  the  Jews  in  Babylonia — 
where  cuneiform  was  written  and  read  as  late  as  the 
first  century  B.  c. — there  were  none  who  could  read  the 
doctiments  of  their  adopted  country  well  enough  to  re- 
ject as  fabulous  the  supposititious  history  and  falsely 
claimed  predictions  of  the  so-called  Pseudo-Daniel? 
Are  we  to  believe,  that  150  years  after  the  time  when 
Berosus  had  written  the  history  of  Babylon,  and 
Menander  that  of  Tyre,  and  Manetho  that  of  Egypt, 
that  in  the  age  of  Polybius  and  Diodorus  Siculus  and  a 
host  of  other  great  historians  writing  in  the  lingua 
franca  of  the  educated  world;  are  we  to  believe,  I  repeat, 
that  the  nation  of  the  Jews  throughout   the  world, 

'The  Egypto-Aramalc  papyri  already  known  contain  part  of  the 
Behistun  inscription  of  Darius  Ilystaspis,  and  mention  by  name,  Cam- 
byses, Darius  I,  Xerxes,  Artaxerxes  I,  and  Darius  II. 


172  The  Book  of  Daniel 

many  of  whom  certainly  spoke  and  read  Greek,  should 
be  so  unacquainted  with  the  history  of  the  world  in 
which  they  lived,  as  not  to  be  able  to  detect  and  expose 
the  falsities  of  such  a  pseudograph  and  to  confute 
its  claims  to  historicity  and  canonization?  Why,  164 
B.  c,  or  thereabout,  when  some  critics  claim  that 
the  book  of  Daniel  was  written,  was  16  years  later 
than  the  time  when  Jesus  ben  Sira,  according  to  the 
same  critics,  wrote  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus,  and 
just  32  years  before  the  time  when  the  same  book  was 
translated  into  Greek  by  his  no  less  thoroughtytlenlight- 
ened  grandson.  It  was  just  a  short  time  before  the 
time  when  the  first  books  of  the  Maccabees  were 
written.  It  was  the  time  when,  according  to  these 
same  critics,  much  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written. 
Can  we  believe  that,  at  such  a  time,  credence  and 
canonization  can  have  been  given  to  a  book,  claiming 
to  be  historical,  but  which  was  at  variance  with  what 
was  known  about  such  easily  ascertained  matters  as 
the  number  and  names  of  the  kings  of  Persia?  Let 
those  believe  who  can,  that  the  foisting  of  such  a 
pseudograph  upon  the  public  of  that  time  was  possible; 
but  let  all  remember  that  such  a  belief  is  based  on  pure 
assumption,  and  has  no  foundation  in  any  known  facts, 
nor  in  any  reasonable  probability,  to  be  derived  either 
from  the  text  of  Daniel,  from  a  sensible  interpretation 
of  the  books  of  Ezra-Nehemiah  and  Haggai-Zechariah, 
or  from  a  Hkely  supposition  as  to  the  knowledge  of 
profane  history  current  among  the  Jews  of  the  second 
century  B.  c. 

III.  However,  even  if  it  could  be  proven  that 
the  other  Old  Testament  scriptures  mention  only  four 
kings  of  Persia,  this  would  not  indicate  that  the  author 
of  Daniel  thought  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  one  of 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       173 

them.  Those  who  assert  that  the  author  of  Daniel 
was  of  the  opinion  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  a  king  of 
Persia'  base  their  assertion  upon  the  following  further 
assumptions : 

1 .  That ' '  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans  *  *  was  the  same 
in  extent  as  the  ''empire  of  the  Persians. " 

2.  That  "from  the  fact  that  in  vi,  25,  Darius  the 
Mede  is  represented  as  the  absolute  ruler  of  the  Baby- 
lonian empire  and  in  vi,  i  as  having  divided  this  empire 
into  120  satrapies,  the  temptation  is  strong  to  suspect 
that  the  author  has  confused  Darius  the  Mede  with 
Darius  Hystaspis  who  actually  organized  the  Persian 
empire  into  20  to  29  satrapies. " 

3.  That  "the  author  of  Daniel  supposed  Xerxes  to 
be  the  father  and  not  the  son  of  Darius."* 

I.  In  answer  to  assumption  number  one,  that  the 
"author  of  Daniel  thought  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans 
to  be  equivalent  to  the  empire  of  the  Persians,"  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  say,  that  it  is  an  assertion  absolutely  unsup- 
ported by  evidence.  If  we  assume  that  he  meant  them 
to  be  the  same,  we  are  met  by  a  host  of  difficulties,  in- 
asmuch as  such  a  king  as  Darius  the  Mede  preceding 
C3n*us  in  the  government  of  the  Persian  empire  is 
unknown  in  both  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  and  in  the 
Persian,  Greek,  and  Babylonian  records.  But  if  we 
allow  that  the  author  meant  them  to  connote  different 
dominions,  the  one  local,  the  other  the  vast  empire  of 
Cyrus,  extending  from  the  ^gean  Sea  to  the  River 
Indus,  embracing  within  its  limits,  as  a  part  of  it, 
the  former  kingdom  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  no  inconsist- 
ency is  found  between  the  statements  of  Daniel  and  the 
other  biblical  or  extra-biblical  sources.  Let  it  be  re- 
membered by  the  reader,  that  in  testing  with  other 

«  See  p.  162.  '  See  IV,  p.  199  and  VII,  p.  264. 


174  The  Book  of  Daniel 

testimony  the  veracity  or  consistency  of  a  document, 
it  is  not  fair  to  take  the  statements  of  the  document 
in  a  sense  different  from  that  which  the  words  most 
naturally  imply;  nor  of  two  possible  interpretations  of  a 
passage  to  take  the  one  which  is  inconsistent  with 
veracity,  while  casting  aside  the  one  which  is  consistent. 
The  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  man  who  impugns 
another's  veracity  or  the  truth  of  his  statements. 
Pennsylvania  is  not  the  United  States  of  America. 
Prussia  is  not  Germany.  England  is  not  the  British 
Empire.  Nor  was  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans  even  at 
the  height  of  its  glory  ever  equal  in  extent,  or  equivalent 
in  power  or  dominion  to  the  empire  of  the  Persians. 
Nor  can  we  believe  that  any  of  the  critics,  nor  that 
any  writer  of  history,  sacred  or  profane,  early  or  late, 
ever  thought  that  they  were  the  same.  The  critic 
may  call  the  author  of  Daniel  an  ignoramus  doubly 
dyed;  but  such  an  assertion  does  not  prove  that  the 
author  ever  said,  or  thought  even,  that  the  Chaldean 
kingdom  had  the  same  extent  as  the  Persian  empire. 

2.  But,  says  the  critic,  does  not  Daniel  say  that 
Darius  is  represented  in  vi,  25,  as  absolute  ruler  of  the 
Persian  empire,  and  in  vi,  I,  as  having  divided  this 
empire  into  120  satrapies?^  To  both  of  these  questions 
I  answer :  No. 

(i)  For,  first,  no  such  representation  as  that  Darius 
the  Mede  was  ruler  of  the  Persian  empire  is  made  in 
vi,  25.  This  verse  in  the  Revised  Version  reads  as 
follows:  *'Then  king  Darius  wrote  unto  all  the  peoples, 
nations,  and  languages,  that  dwell  in  all  the  earth: 
Peace  be  multipHed  unto  you. "  Now,  it  is  a  fact  that 
can  scarcely  need  more  than  a  statement  from  us,  that 
the  Aramaic  word  here  translated  '''^arth"  may  just  as 

*  See  p.  162. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       175 

well  be  translated  *'land. "  The  corresponding  word  in 
Hebrew,  Assyrian,  and  Arabic  may,  also,  have  either 
of  these  senses.  **A11  the  earth"  may  mean  simply 
**all  the  land."  Instead,  therefore,  of  meaning  ** em- 
pire, *'  as  Dr.  Driver  implies,  it  is  doubtful  if  a  single 
example  of  its  use  in  this  sense  can  be  found  in  any 
literature  of  any  age.* 

(2^)  As  to  Daniel  vi,  I,  on  the  basis  of  which  it  is 
asserted  that  Darius  the  Mede  divided  the  Persian 
empire  into  120  satrapies,  the  verse  says  merely  that  he 
placed  these  satraps  over  (literally  '*in")  all  the  king- 
dom. The  natural  interpretation  of  this  kingdom 
would  be,  of  course,  the  kingdom  over  which  he  ruled. 
As  we  have  shown  above  that  by  this  kingdom  was  not 
meant  the  Persian  empire,  the  only  further  inquiry 
needed  is  as  to  whether  or  not  the  sub-kingdom  above 
defined  could  have  had  120  satraps.  This  inquiry 
demands  a  consideration  of  the  meaning  of  the  word 
satrap  and  of  the  extent  of  country  over  which  a  satrap 
may  have  been  placed. 

The  word  satrap  is  derived  from  the  old  Persian 
Khshatrapavatif  which  according  to  Spiegel  is  com- 
pounded of  khshatra,  "kingdom,"  and  pa,  **to  protect. " 
Its  meaning,  then,  would  be  "protector  of  the  king- 
dom. "  It  is  used  twice  only  in  the  Persian  inscriptions : 
in  Behistun,  iii,  14,  where  a  Persian  Dadarshish  is  called 
the  servant  of  Darius  and  satrap  of  Bactria;  and  in  iii, 
55,  of  the  same,  where  the  Persian  Vivana  is  called  the 
servant  of  Darius  and  satrap  of  Arachosia.  In  the 
Avesta,  the  corresponding  word  is  shoiihrapan,  which 

» In  support  of  this  statement,  see  the  Excursus  at  the  end  of  this 
chapter,  pages  186-192. 
*  See  p.  161. 


176  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Justi,  with  whom  Bartholomae  agrees,  renders  **  protec- 
tor of  the  country"  {Beschiltzer  des  Landstrichs)  and 
derives  from  shoithra-pa.  Shoithra  he  defines  as  **  dwell- 
ing place,  Wohnort,  rus,  pagus  in  opposition  to  city, 
about  the  extent  of  country  occupied  by  a  zantu,** 
Zantu  he  defines  as  a  "communion  of  thirty  men  and 
women." 

Now,  if  we  accept  of  these  derivations  and  defini- 
tions, a  satrap  may  have  been  originally  merely  a  chief 
of  a  small  body  of  wandering  Medes,  or  Persians. 
According  to  Justi,  a  daqyu  was  a  region  (Gaubezirk) 
containing  several  zantus;  so  that  each  daqyu  might 
have  had  several  satraps.  This  daqyu,  however,  is 
said  by  Spiegel  to  be  the  same  as  the  Old  Persian  dahyu 
of  the  monuments,  which  means  both  country  and  a  sub- 
division of  a  country.  We  have  seen  above  that  on  the 
monuments  dahyu  is  always  used  in  the  singular  to 
denote  a  country  like  Media,  Bactria,  Babylonia, 
Assyria,  etc.,  and  the  subdivisions,  or  provinces  of  the 
same.  So  that  a  country  like  Media  may  have  had 
many  subdivisions  each  called  dahya  and  each  of  these 
may  have  had  several  satraps.  When  Cyrus  and 
Gobryas  took  Babylon,  Gobryas  who  was  already 
governor  {pihatu)  of  the  land  of  Gutium,  a  part  of 
Media  (?),  was  made  governor  of  Babylon  also.  If 
Gobryas  is  the  same  as  Darius  the  Mede,  then,  accord- 
ing to  Dan.  vi,  i ,  he  may  have  become  king  of  Chaldea, 
also,  at  the  time  including  probably  a  part  of  Elam. 
According  to  the  Cyrus  chronicle  this  Gobryas,  himself 
a  pihatu  of  Cyrus,  appointed  pihats  under  him.  Ac- 
cording to  the  same  chronicle  somebody  (most  probably 
Cyrus)  broke  into  the  land  of  Accad  from  Elam  at  an 
earlier  time  and  placed  a  shahnu,  or  governor,  in  Erech. 
This  shaknu  of  Erech  and  others,  who  were  probably. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       177 

placed  over  other  cities,  as  well  as  the  pihat  placed 
in  Babylon  by  Gobryas,  might  all  very  well  be  called 
satraps  in  Persian  for  all  anyone  knows  to  the  contrary. 
Remember,  that  satrap  occurs  nowhere  on  the  Persian 
monuments  save  in  the  two  places  of  the  Behistun 
Inscription  mentioned  above,  to  wit.  Col.  iii,  lines  14 
and  55.  While  Darius  in  the  Behistun  Inscription 
mentions  the  names  of  23  coimtries  over  which  he 
reigned  and  in  the  Naksh-i-Rustam  inscription  men- 
tions 29  of  them,  it  is  not  said  in  either  that  he  had  set 
satraps  over  them;  but  that  he  ruled  them  himself 
and  that  they  brought  tribute  directly  to  him.  Be- 
sides, even  if  Darius  had  called  the  men  who  ruled  these 
countries  under  him  by  the  name  of  satrap,  this  would 
not  prove  that  the  rulers  of  the  provinces  in  these 
countries  may  not  also  have  been  called  satraps  by  him; 
and  certainly  it  would  not  prove  that  at  an  earlier  time 
the  word  may  not  have  been  used  to  denote  them. 
For  all  we  know  from  the  Old  Persian  inscriptions,  it 
was  the  only  proper  Persian  title  to  apply  to  them.^ 

*  In  proof  of  this  statement,  we  have  carefully  gone  through  all  the 
old  Persian  inscriptions,  with  the  result  that  we  find  there  the  following 
words  for  government  officials:  Khshayathiya,  "king,"  khshatrapavan, 
"satrap,"  aura  Lord  (used  only  once  and  then  of  Auramazda,  the 
supreme  God),  framatar  "commander"  (used  only  of  the  king  of  kings 
and  only  in  the  phrase,  "the  unique,  or  only,  commander  of  many"), 
and  mathasta,  literally  "the  greatest,"  the  general-in-chief  of  an  army. 
The  -word  fratama,  which  in  Daniel  means  "prince,"  is  always  used 
in  the  Persian  inscriptions  as  an  adjective  and  only  in  the  phrsise  fratama 
martiya  an'ushiya  (literally,  "the  chief  man  followers").  There  is  no 
reference,  however,  to  his  official  position  or  duties.  We  have  seen 
above  that  the  Old  Persian  word  for  country,  dahya,  was  used,  also,  to 
denote  a  part  of  the  country;  that  is,  we  have  dahya,  "country,"  and 
dahyava  dahyaush,  "the  countries  (or  provinces)  of  a  country";  and 
that  Gobryas,  the  pihatu  (or  governor)  of  Babylon  under  Cyrus  king  of 
Persia,  had  under  him  other  pihatus  (or  governors).  The  only  Persian 
,  word  of  the  inscriptions  which  corresponds  to  pihatu  is  the  word  satrap, 


178  The  Book  of  Daniel 

In  view  of  this  fact,  our  readers  will  doubtless  consent 
to  the  statement  that  there  is  no  reason  why  Darius 
the  Mede  may  not  have  appointed  120  satraps  to  rule 
under  him  in  the  kingdom  which  according  to  vi,  i ,  he 
had  received,  and  over  which  according  to  ix,  i,  he 
"had  been  made  king,"  as  we  suppose,  by  his  over- 
lord Cyrus  king  of  Persia.  Notice,  whether  the  king- 
dom was  greater  or  smaller  in  extent  than  Babylonia 
merely,  he  may  have  had  satraps  under  him,  and  the 
number  of  these  satraps  may  have  been  as  large  as  one 
hundred  and  twenty,  for  all  we  know  to  the  contrar}^; 
and  so  the  statement  of  Daniel  vi,  i,  stands  unimpugned. 

Before  closing  the  discussion  of  the  word  satrap,  it 
might  be  well  to  ask  whether  the  use  of  the  word  would 

as  in  §45  of  the  Behistun  Inscription.  So  that  writing  in  Persian  we 
would  say  that  Gobryas  the  satrap  of  the  dahyaush  of  Babylon  under 
Cyrus  appointed  under  himself  other  satraps  of  the  dahyava,  or  sub- 
divisions of  his  satrapy.  In  other  words  there  were  small  countries 
within  a  larger  country  and  small  satraps  under  a  great  satrap,  just  as 
there  was  a  Shah-in-Shah,  or  king  of  kings;  just  as  there  used  to  be  a 
king  of  Oudh  and  other  sovereigns  under  the  headship  of  the  queen  of 
England.  What  has  thus  been  shown  to  be  true  of  the  Old  Persian 
inscriptions  is  true,  also,  of  the  Persian  of  the  Avesta.  It  contains  four 
words  for  king;  to  wit,  kavan,  khsaeia,  khshaetar,  and  khshathia:  accord- 
ing to  Justi,  the  first  of  these,  kavan,  is  a  title  which  has  been  found 
used  only  for  the  one  dynasty  beginning  with  Kavata,  The  others 
are  all  connected  with  the  khshayathiya,  of  the  inscriptions.  For  satrap, 
the  modernized  shoithrapan  is  found.  Other  words  for  governor  are 
shoithrapaiti,  "lord  of  a  district"  (Herr  eines  Landstriches) ;  danhupaiti, 
"lord  of  a  country"  (Herr  eines  Gaues);  Zantupaiti,  "chief"  (Herr  einer 
Genossenschaft)  ;/mfaf/ar,  "  ruler  "(Herrscher);  ratu,  "  leader"  (Puhrer); 
hara,  "protector"  (Beschiitzer) ; /m/ewa,  "chief."  There  would  seem 
to  be  an  order  of  rank  in  shoithrapaiti,  danhupaiti,  and  zantupaiti, 
corresponding  closely  to  our  governor,  mayor,  and  alderman  or  magis- 
trate. We  see  no  reason  why  any  one  of  these  three  might  not  have 
been  called  a  shoitrapan,  "satrap,"  just  as  our  governors,  mayors,  and 
aldermen  may  all  be  called  "protectors  of  the  law."  The  king  was 
above  all  satraps  of  every  kind,  just  as  the  president  is  above  all  gover- 
nors, mayors,  and  aldermen. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       179 

best  agree  with  the  dating  of  the  book  of  Daniel  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  sixth  century,  say  535  B.C.,  or  with 
the  date  164  B.C.,  when  many  think  that  the  book 
must  have  been  written. 

As  to  the  earher  of  these  dates,  535  B.C.,  the  only 
objections  to  its  use  at  that  time  are,  first,  that  the 
writer  could  scarcely  employ  the  word  in  an  Aramaic 
document  so  soon  after  the  Persian  conquest  of  Babylon, 
which  had  been  accomplished  in  538  B.C. ;  and  secondly, 
that  he  would  hardly  have  used  a  Persian  word  to 
denote  officers  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 

As  to  the  former  of  these  objections,  it  may  be  said, 
that  the  question  is,  not  whether  an  author  writing 
in  Babylonian  would  have  probably  made  use  of  the 
Persian  word  satrap  in  the  year  535  B.C. ;  but  whether 
a  man  writing  for  the  Aramaic-speaking  Jews  living 
at  the  time  might  have  used  it.  We  must  remember, 
that  the  Aramean  inscriptions  go  back  to  about  1000 
B.  C. ;  that  the  Aramean  tribes  had  been  largely  subject 
peoples  from  the  time  of  Tiglath-Pileser  in  iioo  B.C.; 
that  their  vocabulary  in  all  stages  of  its  existence  was 
more  or  less  filled  with  the  words  of  their  conquerors, 
especially  in  the  sphere  of  governmental  terms. ' 

*  It  must  be  remembered,  also,  that  these  Aramean  tribes  extended 
from  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  Mediterranean,  and  included  the  Syrians  of 
the  Old  Testament,  as  well  as  the  Arameans  of  the  Assyrian  monu- 
ments; that  the  Jews  for  whom  Daniel  wrote  had  been  brought  into 
contact  with  them  from  their  earliest  history  down;  and  that  many  of 
the  Jews  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century  certainly  had 
learned  the  Aramaic  tongue,  the  lingua  franca  of  the  period.  We  must 
remember,  further,  that  many  of  the  Jews  had  been  settled  about  the 
middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes;  that  the 
language  and  government  of  the  Medes  are  known  to  have  been  similar 
to,  and  in  many  respects  the  same  as,  those  of  the  Persians;  that  some 
Aramean  tribes,  at  least,  had  probably  been  subject  to  Median  rulers 
since  the  destruction  of  Nineveh  about  606  B.C.:  that  these  Arameans 


i8o  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Finally,  let  it  be  noticed  that  an  **and'*  is  inserted  in 
the  text  between  the  second  and  third  words  of  Dan. 
iii,  2,  as  if  the  author  intended  to  say  **to  the  satraps, 
both  deputies  and  governors."  The  last  two  words 
are  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  shaknu  and  pihu  (pihatu), 
the  ordinary  words  for  the  rulers  deputed  by  the  king 
to  rule  over  subject  cities  and  provinces.  The  former 
of  these  words,  shaknu,  is  found  once  in  the  Tel-el- 
Amarna  letters  of  about  the  year  1500  B.C.,  and  twice 
in  its  Phenician  equivalent,  on  one  of  the  two  earliest 
specimens  of  Phenician  writing  which  have  come  down 
to  us,  dating  from  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  at  the 
latest.*  It  is  found,  also,  on  the  Egypto- Aramaic 
papyrus  D14,  dating  from  the  sixth  year  of  Artaxerxes 
I,  i.  e.,  459  B.C.,  and  in  the  Sachau  papyri  seven  or 
eight  times.  In  Hebrew  and  in  late  Aramaic,  it  is 
not  used  to  denote  a  deputy  governor,  but  a  deputy 
priest.  The  latter  of  the  two,  pihu,  occurs  in  the 
Hebrew,  referring  to  the  reign  of  Solomon  (i  Kings  x, 
15);  in  the  Aramaic  of  the  Sendshirli  inscriptions  of 
about  720  B.C. ;  and  once  in  the  Aramaic  recension  of 
the  Behistun  Inscription  from  the  fifth  century  B.C.. 
Both  terms,    therefore,  suit   the  age  of  Cyrus,  since 


and  Jews  would  naturally  adopt  the  native  terms  of  their  Median  rulers; 
and  hence  that  the  word  satrap  may  have  been  familiar  to  the  captive 
Jews  since  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.;  and  to  the  conquered 
Aramean  tribes  of  that  portion  of  the  Assyrian  empire  which  fell  to  them 
from  606  B.C.  Further,  we  must  remember,  that  while  Cyrus  did 
not  take  the  city  of  Babylon  until  538  B.C.,  he  had  conquered  Media 
and  Assyria  as  early  as  553  B.C.,  the  third  year  of  Nabunaid  (see  Abu- 
Habba  insc.  Col.  i,  28-33),  and  that  the  Jews  and  Arameans  in  those 
countries  would  thus  have  been  ruled  by  satraps,  long  enough  before 
the  writing  of  the  book,  about  535  B.C.,  to  be  familiar  with  the  meaning 
of  the  term  satrap. 

^  Cooke,  North  Semitic  Inscriptions,  p.  53. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       i8i 

they  woiild  then  be  understood  by  everyone,  inasmuch 
as  all  that  part  of  the  world  had  been  ruled  for  hundreds 
of  years  by  kings  using  these  terms  to  denote  their  sub- 
ordinate officials.  The  newer  Persian  word,  satrap,  may 
very  well  have  been  explained  by  the  two  old  Babylonian 
terms,  shaknu  and  pihu.  In  fact,  we  find  the  latter  of 
these  employed  by  the  Aramaic  version  of  the  Behistun 
Inscription  as  well  as  by  the  Babylonian  in  rendering 
the  old  Persian  Khshatrapavatiy  or  satrap.^  The 
author  of  Daniel,  then,  merely  collects  for  his  Judeo- 
Aramaic  readers  of  all  sections  the  various  terms  for 
governor  known  to  each  or  all  of  them,  in  order  to 
convey  to  them  the  sense  of  the  proclamation  of 
Nebuchadnezzar. ' 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  reply  to  this,  that  the  word  sa- 
trap has  not  been  found  in  the  inscriptions  from  his 
time;  for  these  inscriptions,  except  the  Aramaic  dock- 
ets, are  all  in  Babylonian.  They  are  either  building 
inscriptions  or  contract  tablets,  with  the  exception  of 
the  broken  historical  tablet  recording  the  Egyptian 
campaign,  and  this  fragment  contains  only  one  word  for 
ruler,  the  ordinary  word  for  ]dng,'^ sharru,  and  but  one 
word  for  any  other  official,  the  word  ahkallu,  ** general 
of  the  army  (?)."  The  building  inscriptions  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, moreover,  are  not  concerned  especially  with 
political  matters,  ^  and  so  far  as  can  be  known,  Nebu- 

'Sachau,  Aramdische  Papyrus,  p.  191. 

» Nebuchadnezzar  may  have  used  in  Babylonian  such  a  phrase  as 
ana  naphar  kepani  (or  malkt),  shaknuti,  u  pihate,  etc.,  i.  e.,  to  the 
totality  of  officers  (or  kings),  deputies,  and  governors. 

•  The  only  titles  for  rulers  besides  king  and  the  titles  of  the  gods 
and  kings  of  Babylon  to  be  found  in  all  the  published  building  inscrip- 
tions of  Nebuchadnezzar,  are  pihati  in  Langdon,  number  xvii,  Col.  ii,  B 
10;  and  shagganakku  matt  Hattim  "chiefs  of  the  land  of  the  Hittites" 
{id.,  Col.  iii,  8). 


1 82  The  Book  of  Daniel 

chadnezzar  may  have  used  satrap  in  his  proclamations, 
even  in  the  Babylonian  rendition  of  them.' 

But  as  to  the  Aramaic  translations  of  the  pro- 
clamations of  the  Babylonian  kings,  whenever  such 
translations  may  have  been  made,  it  was  absolutely 
necessary  to  employ  foreign  words  to  express  govern- 
mental ideas,  inasmuch  as  the  pure  Aramaic  did  not 
possess  a  native  vocabulary  sufficient  for  expressing 
them.  ^ 

When  the  Arameans  came  under  subjection  to  any 
foreign  potentate,  we  find  them  uniformly  adopting 
some  of  the  governmental  terminology  of  their  latest 
conquerors,  and  gradually  eliminating  from  their  lit- 
erature  the  linguistic  traces  of  former  subjugations.^ 

The  satrap  of  Ezra  iii,  2  (Peshitto),  of  Ephraem 
Syrus,  and  of  Julian  the  Apostate,  is  evidently  taken 
over  from  the  Greek  and  not  directly  from  the  Persian; 
so  that  the  use  of  the  word  in  Syriac  does  not  prove  a 
continuous  use  of  the  term  in  Aramaic  from  the  Achse- 
menid  period  down,  but  rather  the  contrary.  Further, 
along  this  line,  may  be  noted  the  fact,  that  if  we  place 
the  writing  of  the  book  of  Daniel  in  the  second  century 
B.C.,  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  the  manner  in  which 

^  However,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that,  in  the  Babylonian  after  the 
Persian  conquest  the  word  satrap  has  not  been  found  at  all.  Even 
in  the  Babylonian  version  of  the  inscriptions  of  the  Persian  kings  the 
only  words  for  governmental  officials  are  sharru  "king, "  rdbu  "general" 
(Behistun,  42,  82),  and  hel  "lord"  (Behistun:  Small  Insc,  9). 

»  The  pure  Aramaic  has  the  word  for  king,  malka,  the  word  for  ruler, 
shallit  or  shilton,  the  word  for  judge,  dayyan,  the  word  rab,  magnate, 
the  words  resh  and rashan,  "head,  or  chief,"  and  the  word  mar,  "lord" 
or  "sir." 

3  Thus,  the  word  translated  governor  in  Dan.  iii,  2,  is  the  Assyrian 
pihu  and  is  found  in  Aramaic  first  in  the  inscription  of  Panammu  which 
was  written  about  725  B.C.  and  in  the  Aramaic  recension  of  the  Behistun 
Inscription;  and  is  last  used  in  Daniel  and  Ezra.    Again,  sagan,  the 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       183 

the  word  rendered  satrap  is  spelled  in  the  original,  except 
on  the  assumption  that  the  author  copied  the  word 
from  the  Hebrew  of  Esther  or  Ezra;  simply  changing 
the  ending  to  suit  the  Aramaic  form.  For  notice,  that 
the  word,  as  spelled  in  Daniel,  cannot  have  been  trans- 
literated from  the  Greek  satrap,  nor  apparently  from 
the  Babylonian,  nor  from  the  later  Persian  form  found 
in  the  Avesta.  Whenever  the  word  came  into  the 
Hebrew  and  Aramaic  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  must 
have  come  directly  from  the  Old  Persian,  which  is 
known  to  us  only  from  the  inscriptions  of  the  Achse- 
menids,  and  in  the  case  of  this  particular  word  from 
the  Behistun  Inscription  of  Darius  Hystaspis  alone. 

For  first,  the  word  satrap  in  its  Greek  form  has  for 
its  first  letter  a  sigma,  or  s  sound.  Now,  in  the  trans- 
literation of  Greek  words  taken  over  into  Hebrew 

"deputy"  of  Dan.  iii,  2,  is  found,  perhaps  in  a  political  sense,  in  the 
Tel-el-Amaraa  letters  and  again  in  the  Egypto-Aramaic  of  the  fifth 
century  B.C.  It  occurs,  also,  in  the  earliest  Phenician  inscription,  to  be 
dated  certainly  no  later  than  the  eighth  century  B.C.  Its  most  recent 
use  in  this  sense  in  Aramaic  is  in  Daniel,  though  it  is  found  in  the  He- 
brew of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra.  The  Greek  strategos,  "general, "  is  found  on 
a  Nabatean  monument  of  37  a.d.,  on  Palmyrene  monuments  from  the 
third  century  a.d.,  and  in  ancient  Syriac  frequently  before  the  Moham- 
medan conquest.  In  the  Targum  (2  Chron.  xxviii,  7)  and  in  a  Pal- 
myrene inscription  from  264  a.d.,  when  Palmyra  was  at  times  under  the 
influence  or  domination  of  the  Persian  Sassanids,  argahat,  or  arqabat,  a 
late  Persian  word  not  found  in  the  Avesta  nor  in  the  old  Persian  inscrip- 
tions (de  Vog.,  La  Syrie  Centrale,  26),  is  used  in  the  sense  of  satrap,  or 
deputy.  In  the  same  inscription  we  find  the  Latin  ducenarius  and  the 
Greek  epitropos  and  hippikos.  In  Roman  times,  also,  dux  "duke"  and 
comes  "coimt"  are  found  in  Syriac.  After  the  Arab  conquest,  we  find 
the  Arabic  words  kalifah,  "caliph,"  wazir,  "vizier,"  and  kadi,  "cady." 
In  later  times,  are  found  the  Turkish,  Kurdish,  and  Persian  words 
shah,  "\dng";agha,  "lord  of  a  village" ;  tnudir,  "deputy-governor";  waziV, 
"minister,  or  governor";  sultan,  "sultan";  mutasartp,  "sub-governor"; 
K>a/«,  "governor-general";  walVad,  "crown-prince."  Many  of  these 
last  were  originally  Arabic. 


1 84  The  Book  of  Daniel 

or  Aramaic  or  Syriac,  not  a  single  one  begins  with  an 
Aleph,  followed  by  a  Heth,  followed  by  a  Shin,  as 
does  this  word  'ahashdarpan  in  the  Hebrew  and  Ara- 
maic of  the  O.  T.  Nor  does  a  single  word  begin  with 
Heth  followed  by  a  Shin.  Nor  does  one  begin  even  with 
a  Shin.  This  statement  may  be  tested  by  anyone  who 
will  take  the  trouble,  as  the  writer  of  this  chapter  has 
done,  of  looking  over  all  the  words  beginning  with  the 
above-mentioned  letters,  as  they  are  to  be  found  in 
Dalman's  Aramdlsch-neuhehrdisches  Worterhuch  and 
Brockelmann's  Lexicon  Syriacum. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  are  fortunate  enough  to  be 
able  to  certify  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Hebrew  and 
Aramaic  of  the  Old  Testament  transHterated  an  Old 
Persian  word  beginning  with  the  same  letters  in  Persian 
as  does  the  word  for  satrap.  The  Old  Persian  word 
which  the  Greek  renders  by  Xerxes,  has  on  the  Achae- 
menid  inscriptions  the  letters  khshayarsha;  the  word  for 
satrap  is  khshatrapavan.  It  will  be  noted  that  these 
words  both  begin  with  a  kh  (Hebrew  Heth)  followed 
by  a  sh  (Hebrew  Shin).  Now,  anyone  can  see  in  a 
Hebrew  Bible,  or  Dictionary,  that  Xerxes  in  its  Hebrew 
form  begins  with  Aleph,  followed  by  Heth,  followed  by 
Shin,  just  as  the  word  for  satrap  does.  In  like  manner, 
we  might  reason,  that  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  did 
not  take  over  the  word  through  the  medium  of  the 
Babylonian;  for,  if  we  look  at  the  way  in  which  Xerxes 
was  transliterated  in  Babylonian,  we  find  at  least 
twenty-four  different  ways  of  spelling  the  whole  word 
and  four  different  ways  of  reproducing  the  first  two 
letters.  Only  one  of  these  twenty-four  ways  corre- 
sponds to  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  transliteration,  and 
written  in  this  way  the  word  occurs  but  twice,  and 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       185 

even  there  has  a  difference  of  one  consonantal  letter 
(Evetts,  3,  5).' 

As  to  the  Aramaic  form  of  the  word  used  in  Daniel 
having  been  derived  from  the  later  Persian  of  the 
Avesta,  this  is  ruled  out  by  the  fact  that  in  this  Middle 
Persian  the  word  for  satrap  is  spelled  shoithrapan,  a 
form  which  might  be  transliterated  into  Hebrew  with 
a  prosthetic  Aleph,  but  never  with  a  prosthetic  Aleph 
and  Heth  both.  Finally,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
word  satrap  was  used  in  any  Aramaic  dialect  from 
Greek  or  Roman  times,  except  in  the  Syrian.  Here,  the 
forms  satrdpd  and  satrdpTs  show  clearly  that  the  Syriac 
took  over  the  word  from  the  Greek. 

From  the  above  induction  of  evidence  bearing  on  the 
word  satrap,  we  may  conclude,  that  the  word  satrap 
can  have  been  used  by  a  writer  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
sixth  century  B.C.,  because: 

First,  the  form  of  the  word  as  spelled  in  the  book  of 
Daniel  corresponds  with  the  spelling  of  the  Persian 
of  the  inscriptions;  whereas  the  spelling  of  the  word  in 
Syriac,  the  only  Aramaic  dialect  from  Greek  or  Roman 
times  that  employs  it,  shows  that  the  Syriac  imported 
the  word  from  the  Greeks. 

Secondly,  because  this  spelling  shows,  that  the  word 
as  used  in  Daniel  cannot  have  been  taken  over  from  the 
Greeks,  nor  from  the  Persian  of  the  Avesta  or  later 
times,  nor,  most  probably,  from  the  Babylonian;  but 
directly  from  the  Old  Persian  to  which  it  exactly 
corresponds. 

*  For  the  different  ways  of  writing  Xerxes  in  Babylonian,  see  my 
article  in  the  Princeton  Theolog.  Rev.,  vol.  iii,  p.  i6i;  to  which  add  the 
readings  of  the  tablets  given  in  the  Vorderasiatische  Schrifidenkmdlerf 
vols,  iii,  iv,  V,  and  vi. 


i86  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Thirdly,  because  the  sense  of  the  word  as  used  by 
Daniel  has  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  derivation 
and  use  of  the  word  among  the  Persians  themselves. 

IV.  The  assumption  that  the  author  of  Daniel  sup- 
posed Xerxes  the  Great  to  be  the  father  of  Darius  the 
Made,  after  having  confused  the  latter  with  Darius 
Hystaspis,  is  so  unwarranted,  that  it  may  be  safely 
left  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader.  *  There  is  absolutely 
no  evidence  in  support  of  such  an  assumption.  ^ 

Excursus  on  the  words  for  land,  people,  and  nation. 

In  support  of  my  contention,  that  the  words  for  land 
do  not  denote  the  idea  of  empire  in  the  sense  that  this 
latter  term  is  used  by  Dr.  Driver,  I  append  the  follow- 
ing data.  In  all  of  the  building  inscriptions  of  Nabo- 
polassar  and  Nebuchadnezzar,  irsitu  is  found  numerous 
times  in  the  phrase  "king  of  the  gods  of  heaven  and 
earth'*  applied  to  the  god  Merodach.^  Once '^  Nebu- 
chadnezzar says  that  he  laid  the  foundation  of  his  palace 
upon  the  bosom  of  the  broad  earth  (irsitim),  and  some- 
times he  uses  it  in  the  phrase  **land  of  Babylon,  "s 
The  other  and  usual  Assyrio-Baby Ionian  word  for  land, 
matu,  is  used  frequently  in  these  and  other  inscrip- 
tions; but,  in  the  singular,  it  always  refers  to  one  land 
only;^  the  plural  matati,  or  matan,  being  used  when 
the  rule  of  the  king  of  ^Babylon  over  other  lands 
is  mentioned.  7    This  is  true,   also,   of  the  contract 

^  See  p.  162. 

"  For  a  discussion  of  this  matter  see  p.  264. 

*  Langdon,  84,  122,  114. 
4  Langdon,  p.  88. 
^Id,,  pp.  134,  176. 

*  Langdon,  pp.  54,  60,  90  et  at. 
fE.g.,  Langdon,  pp.  88,  120,  148. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       I87 

tablets  from  Nebuchadnezzar  down,  including  those 
from  the  time  of  the  Persian  kings  of  Babylon.  That 
is,  when  the  king  of  the  land,  or  city,  of  Babylon  is 
meant,  the  singular  is  used;  and  when  the  king  of 
the  lands  is  meant,  the  plural  is  used.  So,  also,  in  the 
Annals  of  Sargon  (Winckler's  edition),  the  singular 
for  land  {matu)  occurs  279  times,  always  of  a  country 
such  as  Elam,  Assyria,  or  the  Medes;  or  of  a  part  of  a 
country — a  district.  In  this  last  sense,  it  is  employed 
sometimes  before  nagu  ** district,"  though  nagu  may  be 
employed  alone  in  this  sense. '  There  might  also  be  a 
land  within  a  land,  as  **the  land  of  Yatbur  in  the  land 
of  Elam";'  or  districts  within  a  land,  as  **six  dis- 
tricts {nage)  of  the  land  of  Gambuli."^  Or  there 
might  be  two  names  united  under  the  head  of  one 
land,  as  **the  land  of  Shumer  and  Accad.  "^  Before 
this  last  combination  of  names  we  find  also  the  two 
names  for  land  combined  as  irsit  matt  Shumer  u  Accadi, 
*'the  land  (surface)  of  the  country  of  Shumer  and  Ac- 
cad.  "^  Or  there  might  be  such  a  phrase  as  'Hhe  land 
of  the  district  of  the  land  of  the  Medes  which  is  of  the 
region  of  the  land  of  lUibi "  ;^  that  is,  a  land  within  a  land 
within  a  land.  "^ 

In  the  Babylonian  inscriptions  of  the  Persian  kings, 

»  See  Annals  of  Sargon,  lines  173,  227,  375. 

"7^.,  1.291.  3  Id.,  1.264. 

<  7d.,  11. 3 13,  3 14.  Compare  the  kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

5  Id.,  11.  235,  241.  6  Id.,  1.  158. 

^  The  plural  "lands"  is  used  but  eight  times  in  Sargon's  Annals, 
usually  in  the  phrase  "people  of  the  lands,"  e.  g.,  ntst  matate  (W.  16,  71, 
177,  227).  The  other  uses  are  "kings  of  the  lands"  (1. 437);  "Bel,  lord 
of  the  lands"  (1.  436);  "I  passed  through  those  lands"  i.e.,  those  men- 
tioned in  the  preceding  context  (11.  58-60);  the  "lordship  of  the  lands" 
(1.  181).  In  this  last  example,  the  text  is  much  broken;  but  it  seems 
to  indicate  that  the  lands  meant  are  all  parts  of  the  land  of  Kammanu 
spoken  of  in  1.  179. 


i88  The  Book  of  Daniel 

also,  "land"  is  never  used  for  *' lands";  but  the  former 
always  means  a  single  division  of  the  empire  which  em- 
braced the  lands  under  the  dominion  of  the  great  kings 
of  kings.  For  the  empire  as  a  whole  the  following  ex- 
pressions are  used:  " lands" ;^  ** lands  of  the  totality  of 
tongues";*  '* lands  of  the  totality  of  all  tongues" ;3  *'the 
great  wide  earth's  surface";*  "all  the  totality  of  the 
lands;"s  *Hhe  totality  of  all  lands";*^  "earth's  surface"?; 
"this  great  wide  earth's-surface  of  many  lands";*  "the 
land  of  Persia  and  the  land  of  Media  and  the  other 
lands  of  other  tongues  of  the  mountains  and  the  land 
this  side  the  sea  and  beyond  the  sea,  of  this  side  the 
desert  land  and  beyond  the  desert  land";'  "this  great 
broad  earth's  surface ";"*•  "the  totality  of  lands";" 
"the  totality  of  all  tongues";^*  "the  great  broad  earth's 
surface";**  "the  lands  which  are  upon  all  the  earth's 
surface."** 

In  these  inscriptions,  earth  as  opposed  to  heaven  is 
denoted  by  irsitu  in  NR.  i,  H.  2,  Ca.  2,  Cb.  2,  K.  3; 
and  by  kakkaru,^^ 

»  Mctati,  Behistun  Inscription,  7,  8,  14,  40,  NR.  4,  8,  20,  25,  D  18. 
-7(i..D7,E5. 

'  Matati  sha  naphar  lishanu  {hshanaii)  gahhi  {id.,  NR.  4,  B.  2,  O.  13, 
Ca.  6,  Cb.  9). 

*  Kakkar  ruktum  rabiiu  {id.,  NR.  5). 
^Kullu  napharisun  {id.,  NR.  26). 

«  Naphar  matati  gahhi  {id,,  Ca.  4,  Cb.  7,  K.  8). 
'  Kakkaru  (0.  2) . 

*  Kakkar  agaa  rapshatum  sha  matati  madietum  {id.,  H.  5). 
»  H.'6^I2,  15-20.    Bezold,  p.  39. 

»•  Kakkari  agata  rdbiti  rapshatum  {id.,  Ca.  6,  Cb.  11,  F.  16). 
"  Naphar  matati  {id.,  F.  15). 
»•  Naphar 'lishanu  gahhi  {id.,  K.  12). 
'»  Kakkari  rahitum  rapshatum  {id.,  K.  12). 
»<  Matati  sha  ina  muhhi  kakkar  gahhi  {id.,  S.  2). 
^s  Heb.  Karka,  ground.    To 'denote  land  the  Babylonian  uses,  also^ 
dadmu,  kihratu,  nagu,  and  pihatu. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       189 

In  the  Persian  of  the  Behistun  Inscription  burnt  is 
employed  to  render  both  irsitu  and  kakkaru;  dahya  for 
matu;  and  zana  for  lisanu.  The  Susian  inscriptions 
make  similar  and  consistent  distinctions,  using  murun 
for  earth,  tayiyaus  for  land,  and  zana  for  tongue. 

In  Arabic,  halad  came  to  be  used  in  the  sense  of  matu; 
but  'ard  had  the  double  meaning  of  earth  as  opposed 
to  heaven,  and  of  the  land  in  which  we  live. ' 

In  Hebrew,  the  one  word  *ars  had  to  do  service  in 
both  senses.  It  meant  earth  as  opposed  to  heaven  as  in 
Gen.  i,  i ;  but  it  was  used,  also,  for  land,  as  in  Gen.  iv, 
16,  "land  of  Nod." » 

The  plural  "lands"  was  used  appropriately  when  a 
number  of  countries  was  meant.  A  good  example  is  to 
be  found  in  Gen.  xxvi,  3,  4,  where  the  Lord  says  to 
Isaac:  "Sojourn  in  the  land  .  .  .  ;  for  unto  thee  and 
unto  thy  seed  I  will  give  all  these  lands  .  .  .  ;  and  in 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
Another  is  the  familiar  phrase  "kings  of  the  lands"  aS 
used  in  Ezra  ix,  7.  ^ 

»  For  the  latter  use,  see  the  Koran  vii,  107;  xiv,  16;  xx,  59,  66; 
xxvi,  34;  xxviii,  57;  xxxi,  34;  xxxiii,  27. 

*  So,  also,  "Land  of  Shinar,"  Gen.  x,  10,  li,  xi,  2;  "land  of  Canaan,*' 
xi,  31,  xii,  5;  "Land  of  Egypt,"  xiii,  10;  and  often  of  other  lands,  as 
Philistina,  xxi,  32,  Edom,  xxxvi,  16,  Goshen,  xlv,  10,  Midian,  Ex.  ii, 
15,  Gilead,  Num.,  xxxii,  i,  Moab,  Deut.  £,  5,  Ephraim  and  Manasseh, 
xxxiv,  2,  Judah,  xxxiv,  2,  Hittites,  Jos.,  i,  4,  Mizpeh,  xi,  3,  Zebulon,  Jud. 
xii,  12,  Ephraim,  xii,  15,  Benjamin,  xxi,  21,  Shalisha,  I  Sam.  ix,  4, 
Shalim,  id.,  Zuph,  ix,  5,  Gad,  xiii,  7,  Shual,  xiii,  17,  Israel,  xiii,  19, 
Beni  Ammon,  2  Sam.  x,  2,  Hepher,  i  Kings  iv,  10,  Galilee,  ix,  11,  Naph- 
talixv,  20,  Hamath,  2  Kings  xxiii,  33  Bashan,  i  Chron.v,  ii,Chittim, 
Isa.  xxiii,  I  Chaldeans,  xxiii,  13,  Assyria,  xxvii,  13,  Uz,  Jer.  xxv,  20, 
Pathros,  xliv,  i,  Babylon,  1,  28,  Magog,  Ezek.  xxxviii,  2,  Nimrod,  Mic. 
v,  6,  and  others. 

»  Compare,  also,  the  phrases  "people  of  the  lands,"  Ezra  iii,  3,  ix,  i, 
2,  II,  Neh.  ix,  30,  X,  29;  "kingdoms  of  the  lands,"  i  Chron.  xxix,  30,2 
Chion.  xii,  8,  xvii,  10,  xx,  29;  "families  of  the  lands,"  Ezek.  xx,  32;  and 


I90  The  Book  of  Daniel 

In  Aramaic  and  Syriac,  'ar\  the  word  correspond- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  'ars,  has  the  same  variety  of 
meanings. 

.  It  requires,  therefore,  more  than  an  ipse  dixit  to  show 
that  the  author  of  Daniel  meant  that  Darius  the  Mede 
made  his  decree  for  more  than  a  limited  portion  of  that 
great  empire  which  was  ruled  over  by  Cyrus  and  by 
Darius  Hystaspis.  For  the  word  employed  in  Daniel 
vi,  25,  'ar*  might  be  used  for  the  land  of  a  city,  of  a  tribe, 
of  a  people,  or  of  peoples  and  nations,  as  well  as  to 
denote  earth  as  distinguished  from  heaven.  The 
Hebrews  consistently  employ  the  word  kingdom  or 
realm  to  denote  empire  or  dominion;  but  the  words 
used  to  express  the  idea  are  limited  in  the  extent  of 
meaning  from  a  city  to  a  province,  or  a  country,  or  a 
number  of  countries.  The  nearest  approach  in  Hebrew 
to  a  phrase  equivalent  to  our  "Persian  empire*'  is  to  be 
found  in  Ezra  i,  2,  and  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  23,  where  we 
read:  "Thus  saith  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  The  Lord  God 
of  heaven  hath  given  me  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth.  '* 
This  phrase  "all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth*'  is 
used  in  the  widest  sense  in  2  Kings  xix,  15,  19,'  where 
Jehovah  is  said  to  be  God  alone  of  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  earth;  and  again  in  Isa.  xxiii,  17,  where  it  is 
said  of  Tyre  that  "she  shall  commit  fornication  with 
all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  which  are  upon  the  face 
of  the  ground";  and  in  Jer.  xxxiv,  I,  where  it  is  said 
that  "Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon,  and  all  his 
army,  and  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  that  were  under 
his  dominion  {memsheleth  yado),  and  all  the  peoples 

especially,  2  Chron.  xxxiv,  33,  where  we  read,  "And  Josiah  took  away 
all  the  abominations  out  of  all  the  countries  that  pertained  to  the 
children  of  Israel." 
^  Isa.  xxxvii,  16,  20  id. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       191 

iha'ammim)  fought  against  Jerusalem."  In  a  similar 
sense,  the  phrase  is  employed  where  it  is  said  in  several 
places,  that  God  would  scatter  the  children  of  Israel 
among  **all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth.**'  In  2 
Chron.  xvii,  10,  it  is  said,  that  'Hhe  fear  of  Jehovah  was 
upon  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  lands  which  were  round 
about  Judah."  In  2  Chron.  xx,  29  this  fear  is  said 
to  have  been  upon  **all  the  kingdoms  of  the  lands", 
which  heard  of  the  slaughter  with  which  Jehovah 
had  caused  the  sons  of  Ammon  and  the  inhabitants  of 
Mount  Seir  to  destroy  one  another,  in  answer  to  the 
prayer  of  Jehoshaphat  recorded  in  the  sixth  verse  of  the 
same  chapter,  where  he  asks  Jehovah,  God  of  his  fathers, 
**  Art  thou  not  God  in  heaven?  and  rulest  thou  not  over 
all  the  kingdoms  of  the  nations?"  In  i  Chron.  xxix, 
29,  30,  it  speaks  of  the  books  which  recorded  the  acts 
of  David  **  with  all  his  reign  and  his  might  and  the  times 
that  went  over  him,  and  over  Israel,  and  over  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  lands."  In  2  Chron.  xii,  8,  Israel  was 
delivered  into  the  hand  of  Shishak,  king  of  Egypt,  that 
they  might  know  Jehovah's  "service,  and  the  service 
of  the  kingdoms  of  the  lands."  This  phrase  **all  the 
kingdoms"  is  found,  also,  in  i  Kings  iv,  21,  where  Solo- 
mon is  said  to  have  ''ruled  over  all  the  kingdoms  from 
the  River  [Euphrates]  unto  the  land  of  the  Philistines 
and  unto  the  border  of  Egypt. "  "All  the  kingdoms  of 
Canaan"  are  spoken  of  in  Ps.  cxxxv,  ii;  and  "the 
kingdoms  of  Hazor"  in  Jer.  xlix,  2^. 

From  the  above  examples,  it  is  evident  that  if  the 
writer  of  Daniel  had  wished  to  indicate  that  the  decree 
of  Darius  in  chapter  vi,  25,  was  meant  for  the  Persian 
empire,  he  could  have  used  such  a  phrase  as  "all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth,"  as  Cyrus  did  in  his  decree  of 

*  Deut.  xxviii,  25,  Jer.  xxv,  4,  xiv,  9,  xxix,  18,  xxxiv,  17. 


192  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Ezra  i,  2,  and  Hezekiah  in  his  prayer;  or  more  definitely 
still,  the  phrase  of  Isaiah  xxiii,  17,  "all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  earth  which  are  upon  the  face  of  the  ground. " 
Or,  he  might  have  said  ''all  the  kingdoms  of  the  lands,  '* 
or  *'all  the  kingdoms  of  the  nations"  or,  after  the  man- 
ner of  Esther  i,  I,  **all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth  from 
India  even  unto  Egypt.**  But,  as  he  uses  simply 
**all  the  earth,**  the  presumption  is  that  he  meant  the 
land  i^ars),  or  country,  over  which  he  ruled,  without 
defining  the  extent  of  the  country.  It  might  have  been 
merely  Babylonia,  or  Chaldea,  or  Media,  or  any  two,  or 
all  three,  of  these.  According  to  any  fair  interpretation, 
however,  it  must  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  rest  of 
the  book  of  Daniel  as  explained  in  the  light  of  its 
own  evidence;  unless  and  until  sufficient  evidence  shall 
be  gathered  to  convince  unbiassed  judges  that  the  ^ars 
of  chapter  vi,  25,  must  have  meant  the  empire  of 
Persia. 

But,  someone  may  say,  is  not  this  shown  conclu- 
sively by  the  use  of  the  words  "peoples,  nations,  and 
languages ' '  of  this  very  verse  ?  To  which  the  answer  is, 
Certainly  not.  For  these  words  also  must  be  limited 
by  their  context.  In  Dan.  iii,  4,  7  his,  31,  they  are 
employed  to  denote  the  inhabitants  of  the  provinces  of 
the  kingdom  of  Nebuchadnezzar;  and  in  v,  19,  Daniel 
is  represented  as  saying  to  Belshazzar,  that  "all  peoples, 
nations,  and  languages  trembled  and  feared  before** 
Nebuchadnezzar.  Here,  of  course,  the  Median  and  Lyd- 
ian  empires  can  scarcely  have  been  meant.  In  Dan. 
vii,  14,  where  it  is  said  that  "all  peoples,  nations  and 
languages,  should  serve"  the  son  of  man  forever,  it  was 
probably  used  in  the  most  general  sense.  But  we 
contend  that  they  do  not  necessarily,  even  in  them- 
selves, have  this  universal  sense. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       193 

For  the  words  here  translated  peoples  are  employed 
in  Hebrew,  Phenician,  Arabic,  and  Aramaic  in  a  nar- 
rower meaning  which  will  suit  the  boundaries  of  the 
land  of  a  sub-king  of  a  province,  as  well  as  the  empire 
of  the  king  of  kings. 

For  example,  *am,  *  people**  is  found  in  Phenician 
for  the  people  of  the  city  of  Tyre;'  for  the  people  of  the 
city  of  Sidon ; '  for  the  people  of  the  city  of  Maktar ;  *  and 
for  those  of  the  city  of  Carthage. -♦  In  Arabic,  the 
word  *aw  means  **a  company  of  men,**  or  as  some  say 
**of  a  tribe.  **s  In  the  Arabic  version  of  Isaiah  ^am 
is  rendered  by  sa'by  "tribe,"  in  chapter  xxv,  3;  xxxiii, 
3;  xlv,  I,  and  also  in  Saadya*s  version  in  Deut.  xxxiii, 
3.  The  Arabic  has  six  or  more  divisions  and  sub- 
divisions of  the  tribe  and  several  more  of  the  nation.  ^ 

In  the  Aramaic  of  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  to  the 
prophets,  and  in  the  Peshitto,  'am  translates  the  cor- 
responding Hebrew  word  and  also  usually  goy,  "nation.  '* 
E.  g.f  Isa.  xiv,  6,  xxv,  3,  xxxi,  28,  xlii,  6.^ 

Goy,  the  ordinary  Hebrew  word  for  nation,  is  ren- 
dered malkuth  in  Isa.  xi,  10;  xxxiii,  3;  xlix,  22,  by  the 
Targum  of  Jonathan.  L'om  is  always  rendered  by 
tnaleku  in  Onkelos.*  *Am  is  rendered  by  shevet  in 
Gen.  xxviii,  3,  xlviii,  4,  and  Deut.  xxxiii,  3,  where  it 
refers  to  the   divisions  of  Israel.'    Mishpachdh^  the 


«  CIS  i,  7.5.        *  Cooke,  North  Semitic  Insc,  p.  95.     »  7J.,  151. 

*  Id.,  134.  s  Lane,  vol.  i,  p.  2149.  <  Lane,  p.  1536. 
'  In  the  Nabatean  royal   inscriptions,  '  am  Is  used  ordinarily  in  the 

phrase  "lover  of  his  people."  See  Cooke,  pp.  217,  220,  225, 226, 227  et  al. 

•  The  Aramaic  version  of  the  Pentateuch  in  common  use  among  Jews 
of  the  early  Christian  centuries  and  until  about  200  a.  d. 

'  Shevet  is  the  transliteration  of  the  Hebrew  shevet  and  the  trans- 
lation of  matteh  meaning  a  tribe  of  Israel,  both  in  the  Aramaic  Tar- 
gums  in  the  Syriac  and  Samaritan  dialects,  and  with  the  change  of  the 
sibilant  in  Arabic  also.  In  both  Aramaic  and  Arabic  the  word  shevet 
is  commonly  used  only  for  a  tribe  of  Israel. 

13 


194  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Hebrew  word  for  family,  is  rendered  in  Onkelos  by  the 
word  for  seed.  The  Samaritan  usually  transliterates,^ 
but  at  other  times  renders  by  the  pecuHar  word  karn. 
The  Arabic  version  employs  *  a  sir  at ,  the  word  in  Arabic 
for  the  next  greatest  division  of  a  tribe. ""  For  the  Hebrew 
''house"  in  the  sense  of  household,  or  family,  Onkelos 
uses 3  **the  men  of  his  house."  The  Syriac  has  seven 
words  for  "gens";  four  for  family;  two  for  nation;  four 
for  "populus."4  In  Hebrew,  we  have  a  much  larger 
number  of  words  for  nation,  people,  etc.,  such  as  goy 
nation^  Tom  people,  'am  people,  'anashimmen.banim 
sons,  ^ummah  tribe,  shevet  tribe,  matteh  tribe,  chayyah 
tribe  (Psa.  Ixviii,  1 1),  mishpachah  family,  and  beth  house. 
Perhaps,  also,  pachad  means  tribe  in  Gen.  xxxi,  42. 

*  Ummah  occurs  but  twice  in  the  Hebrew  bible  and  in 
both  cases  it  is  used  to  denote  a  subdivision  of  the  'am; 
in  Gen.  xxv,  16,  it  denotes  the  twelve  divisions  of  the 
Ishmaelites,  and  in  Num.  xxv,  15,  Zur  the  father  of  Cozbi 
is  said  to  have  been  head  of  the  '  Ummoth  of  a  father's 
house  in  Midian.  As  Midian  is  called  an  *am  in  Ex.  ii, 
15,  it  is  plain  that  the  *ummah  was  a  subdivision  of  the 
*am,  whatever  the  exact  relationship  to  a  "father's 
house"  may  have  been. 

In  Babylonian,  the  ordinary  word  for  people  is 
nishu,  which  is  probably  of  the  same  origin  as  the 
Hebrew  enosh  and  the  Syriac  nosho,  the  usual  word  for 
man  {vir)  as  distinguished  from  woman.  The  word 
is  used  of  the  people  of  a  city  ;s  or  of  a  land.  ^ 

'  As  in  Num.  xxvii,  7  et  at. 

'  Lane,  p.  1556,  compared  with  p.  2053.  Steingass  in  his  English- 
Arabic  dictionary  gives  5  words  for  nation,  10  for  people,  4  for  family; 
and  Lane  in  his  Arabic  dictionary  gives  9  subdivisions  of  "tribe." 

3  E.  g.,  Gen.  xii,  17. 

<  See  Brockelmann's  Lexicon  Syriacum  in  loco. 

s  E,  g.,  nishim  Babilam-ki  (Muss-Amolt,  p.  737b). 

6  E.  g.,  nish  Sumerim  u  Akkadim,  "people  of  Shumer  and  Accad"  (id., 


^  Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia       195 

Less  frequently  we  find  the  word  ummanu,  which 
probably  is  from  the  same  root  as  'am,  Langdon  trans- 
lates ummanati  by  "people."^ 

A  third  word  for  people  is  ummatu;^  a  fourth,  tenisetu, 
in  such  phrases  as  Ea  hel  tenisetu  **Ea  lord  of  man- 
kind";^ a  fifth  word  is  dadmu  which  is  used  in  parallel 
inscriptions  instead  of  tenisetu  in  such  phrases  as 
kal  dadmi,  **all  men/'^  or  alone  for  people  as  in  Sargon 
inscriptions.  ^  A  sixth  way  of  expressing  the  people  of  a 
city,  or  country,  is  by  the  word  mare ^  '*sons,"  followed 
by  the  name  of  the  city  or  land  as  in  the  phrase  mare 
ali,  **sons  of  the  city,"  mare  Nina,  **sons  of  Nineveh," 
mare  Bahili,  "sons  of  Babylon,"  mare  matt  Ashshur, 
*  *  sons  of  the  land  of  Assur. "  ^  A  seventh  way  is  amelu, 
employed  before  the  name  of  a  city  or  country  to  denote 
the  inhabitants  of  it.  ^ 


737a);  nishim  matt  Babili,  "peoples  of  the  land  of  Babylon"  (Langdon, 
p.  59);  and  in  the  phrase  land  and  people  {id.  59:  12;  61:  12;  91:  9;  103: 
23 ;  123 :  26) ;  for  many  nations  e.g.,  in  the  phrase  nishim  raheatim  {id.,  89 : 
28),  or  nishim  rapashtim  (71  :  12 ;  83  :  10;  89  :  ii ;  1 17  :  19;  149  :  12) ;  for  all 
nations  e.  g.,  in  the  phrase  kullat  nishim,  {id.  59  :  17;  89  :  24;  171  135  (?)) ; 
or  kishshat  nishi,  "host  of  nations"  {id.  119  :  42;  121  :  64;  141  :  50);  or 
nishi  matati  (Muss-Amolt,  737a) ;  or  simply  nishi  in  the  phrase  Ea 
patik  nishi,  Ea  creator  of  mankind.     (KB  iii,  11). 

^  So  on  p.  53,  vol.  iii,  4.  See,  also,  Delitzsch,  HWB.,  p.  87a.  We 
find,  also,  the  phrases  ummanat  Bel,  people  or  servants  of  Bel,  and 
ummanim  shadleatim  {id.  59  :  25),  "the  numerous  or  obedient  peoples" 
(Langdon,  p.  51, vol.  ii,  2;  Delitzsch,  HWB.,  under  shadlu,  vol.  ii,  p.  644). 

="  Muss-Amolt,  64a. 

3  Compare  teniseti  "people"  {Savgon  Annals,  373) ,  tentseti nakiri  "hos- 
tile peoples"  {id.  414,  xiv.27),  tentseti  matitan  "people  of  the  lands"  {id. 
428) ;  kala  teniseti  "all  men"  (Del.,  HWB.  106)  to  denote  tribe  or  family; 
kullat  teniseti  {id).  Teniset  ameli  Kaldi a.nd  teni'setmati  Kaldi  "people 
of  the  men"  or  "of  the  land  of  the  Chaldeans"  {id.  106). 

<Del.,  HWB.,  211,  e.  g.,  dadmi  matitan  "the  people  of  the  lands" 
(Sargon,  Pr.,  165) .       s  E.  g..  Annals,  427, 454,  xiv,  76,  pp.  ii,  40,  iv,  121. 

«  Del.,  HWB.,  p.  391. 

">  E,  g,,  of  cities  as  in'Sargon's  Annah  40,  50,  and  of  countries  as  in 


196  The  Book  of  Daniel 

To  denote  tribe,  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  employs 
the  words  nishatUy  kimtUj  salatUj  emutu,  limu,  (Hebrew 
rom)y  ummatu  (Hebrew  ^ummah),  salmat  gagadim, 
salmat  kakkadi,  and  lishanu.  ^ 

In  the  Persian  of  the  inscriptions,  the  following  words 
are  used  for  people  etc.:  Kara  '* people*';^  karu  Mada 
"the  Median  people,  "^  a  word  used  of  the  divisions  of 
the  Medes  and  Persians;  tauma  ''family,'*  especially  of 
the  family  of  the  Achaemenidae;^  citra  "seed,  race" 
of  the  Aryan  race  only,  as  in  NRa  14;  par'uzana  "of 
man}'-  tribes,  or  tongues,  *'  in  the  phrase  "lands  of  many 
tribes,  or  tongues,  "^  equivalent  to  the  Babylonian 
"lands  of  the  totality  of  all  tongues,"  and  martiya 
a  word  corresponding  to  our  word  "man." 

The  New-Susian  inscriptions  of  the  Persian  kings 
have  the  same  variety  of  words  to  denote  the  people 
and  the  subdivisions  of  the  people,  as  we  have  found  in 
the  Old  Persian.  ^      

the  Annals,  242,  Pr.,  37.  The  abstract  word  amelutu  is  used  to  denote 
"the  human  race"  (Muss-Arnolt,  57B). 

*  Phrases  used  to  denote  the  idea  of  mankind  in  a  more  or  less  limited 
sense  are  as  follows:  amelutum  nishi  salmat  kakkadu  "men  of  the  people 
of  the  dark  race";  kibrati  sha  kala' ienisheti  "the  regions  of  all  man- 
kind" (Langdon,  p.  141);  nishi  kibrati  arhatim  "men  of  the  four  re- 
gions" {id.,  153:21);  naphar  nishi  dadmi  rapshaiim  "the totality  of  the 
people  of  scattered  habitations,"  or  "of  many  peoples"  (151: 19)  gimir 
salmat  kakkadu  (Sargon  xiv,  69,  70),  "the  totality  of  the  black  headed 
(people),"  and  most  detailed  of  all  "kullat  matatan  gimir  kala  dadmi 
idtu  tiamtim  eletim  adi  tiamtim  shaplitim  matati  ragatim  nisi  dadmi 
rapsaiim  sharrani  shadi  neshutim  u  nagi  bierutimf  etc.,  ummanat  Sha* 
mash  u  Marduk"  (Langdon  149  :  17-35)  "all  lands;  the  totality  of  the 
people  from  the  upper  sea  to  the  lower  sea,  the  far  away  lands,  the 
people  of  many  habitations,  kings  of  distant  mountains  and  remote 
regions,  etc.,  the  subjects  (peoples)  of  Shamash  and  Marduk  I  sum- 
moned etc. " 

'  Beh.,  i,  50,  66,  75,  78.  Compare,  also,  kara  har'uva  "the  whole 
people"  {id.,  i,  40,  ii,  75, 90).  3  Id.,  i,  69,  71  et  ah 

^  Beh.,  i,  16  et  al.  s  Elwend  75,  Suez,  b  5  et  al. 

^  See  F.  H.  Weisbach,  Die  Achamenideninschriften  Zweiter  Art. 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia      197 

So,  also,  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  terms  to  denote 
mankind  and  its  divisions  and  subdivisions,  the  evi- 
dence shows,  that  coordinate,  or  equivalent,  words 
denoting  the  same  ideas  did  not  exist  among  all  nations, 
nor  in  all  languages.  The  meanings  of  terms,  then  as 
now,  were  dependent  upon  social  and  political  condi- 
tions. The  Arabs,  having  one  kind  of  society  and 
circumstances,  have  a  suitable  vocabulary  to  express 
their  political  and  social  divisions.  The  Hebrews,  with 
different  conditions,  have  a  different  vocabulary.  The 
Persians  have  another,  and  the  Babylonians  still  an- 
other. Among  the  Aramaic  dialects,  we  find  the 
Syrians  with  a  different  vocabulary  from  that  of  the 
Targums  and  from  that  of  Ezra  and  Daniel.  In  con- 
sidering, therefore,  the  meaning  of  the  terms  employed 
by  Daniel  to  denote  the  political  divisions  of  the  popu- 
lation of  the  **land**  or  '*  earth, "  we  must  limit  our- 
selves, not  to  the  words  employed  in  Greek,  Latin, 
German,  or  English,  nor  even  to  those  foimd  in  Arabic, 
Hebrew,  Babylonian,  or  Persian ;  but  to  a  consideration 
of  the  words  found  in  the  Aramaic  itself.  When  we  do 
this,  we  find,  that  *am  and  *  ummah  are  the  only  words 
in  Ezra,  Daniel,  or  the  Targums,  to  express  the  people 
of  a  countr>%  or  of  its  subdivisions.  If  the  book  of 
Daniel  had  been  written  in  some  other  language,  more 
terms  might  possibly  have  been  employed  to  express 
these  ideas.  As  it  is,  who  can  deny  that  Babylonia 
itself,  or  a  kingdom,  or  sub-kingdom,  consisting  of 
Babylonia,  Shumer  and  Accad,  Chaldea,  Susiana,  and 
possibly  of  Mesopotamia,  Gutium,  and  parts  at  least 
of  Media  and  Syria,  over  all  of  which  it  is  more  than 
possible  that  Darius  the  Mede  may  have  reigned  as  sub- 
king  under  Cyrus, — who  can  deny,  I  say,  that  this  king- 
dom may  have  had  in  it  many  peoples  and  clans  and 


198  The  Book  of  Daniel 

tribes?  For  example,  there  was  the  people,  or  *am,  of 
the  Arameans.  One  tribe,  or  'ummah,  of  these  certainly 
dwelt  in  Damascus,  others  lived  in  the  vicinity  of  Baby- 
lon, others  probably  had  already  possessed  parts  of 
Mesopotamia.  So  with  the  Medes,  Darius  Hystaspis 
and  Herodotus  speak  of  the  people  of  the  Medes  and  of 
their  clans.  Then  there  were  the  Arabs,  who  were  n6t 
merely  a  separate  'am  but  had  always  their  distinct 
tribes.  Other  peoples  would  be  the  Babylonians,  the 
Assyrians,  the  Elamites,  and  perhaps  Scythians,  Arme- 
nians, and  Cimmerians. 

So,  also,  with  the  languages,  or  tongues,  spoken  of  in 
Daniel.  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  facts  re- 
vealed by  the  monuments  to  suppose  that  decrees  put 
forth  at  Babylon  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.  would  be 
issued  in  several  tongues,  such  as  the  Babylonian,  the 
Susian,  the  Aramean,  and  the  Median.  Darius  Hystas- 
pis and  his  successors  have  made  their  inscriptions  in 
three  or  more  languages.'  After  the  Macedonian 
conquests,  many  decrees  and  inscriptions  were  made  in 
two  or  more  languages,  as  witness  the  Rosetta  stone, 
and  many  of  the  Palmyrene  inscriptions.  In  a  poly- 
glot community,  like  that  of  Babylon  in  the  sixth 
century  B.C.,  any  king  who  really  wanted  his  subjects 
to  obey  his  decrees  must  have  issued  them  in  languages 
which  they  could  understand;  and  so  we  can  well 
believe  that  Darius  the  Mede  may  have  issued  his 
decrees,  not  merely  in  Babylonian,  or  Median,  or  Per- 
sian; but,  also,  it  may  be,  in  Aramaic,  and  Hebrew, 
and  Susian,  as  well  as  in  other  tongues.  ^ 

^  Darius  in  his  Behistun  Inscription,  §  70,  says  that  he  sent  it  into 
all  lands.     See  Weissbach,  Keilinschriften  der  Achaemeniden,  p.  71. 

'  The  inscription  of  Behistun  is  in  three  languages  and  an  AramLaic 
version  of  it  has  been  found  at  Elephantine  in  Egypt.  The  Suez 
inscriptions  of  Darius  are  in  four  languages.  ' 


Darius  and  the  Kings  of  Persia      199 

Having  thus  shown  that  when  the  author  of  Daniel 
says  in  chapter  vi,  25,  that  Darius  made  a  decree  for 
*'all  peoples,  nations,  and  languages  that  dwell  in  all 
the  'arj"  he  may  have  meant  merely  for  that  part  of  the 
Persian  empire  over  which  he  ruled,  we  shall  rest  our 
case,  and  advise  our  readers  to  do  the  same,  until  those 
who  assert  that  the  whole  empire  of  Persia  is  meant 
shall  produce  some  evidence  to  support  their  claim. 
Let  the  readers  of  this  article  remember  that  every 
part  of  a  document,  especially  one  as  to  which,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  the  unity  is  generally  admit- 
ted, must  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with  the  rest  of 
the  document.  The  only  exception  to  this  rule  of  evi- 
dence is  in  the  case  of  parts  as  to  which  it  can  be  shown 
by  convincing  evidence  that  they  have  been  forged  and 
interpolated  in  the  original  text.  No  such  claim  has 
ever  been  made  for  this  and  similar  verses.  Till  such  a 
claim  shall  have  been  made  and  the  evidence  for  it  pro- 
duced, we  may  be  allowed  to  believe  that  Darius  the 
Mede  is  not  represented  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Daniel 
as  the  absolute  ruler  of  the  Persian  empire.  A  sub- 
king  to  Cyrus,  king  of  Persia,  may  have  issued  the 
decree  in  the  terms  of  the  text,  without  exaggeration  of 
language,  or  any  departure  from  the  truth,  or  any 
stretch  of  his  authority,  or  of  the  legal  boimds  within 
which  his  writ  could  run. 


CHAPTER  X 

DARIUS   THE    MEDE    NOT   A   CONFUSION   WITH    DARIUS 
HYSTASPJS 

V.  As  to  the  question,  whether  the  author  of  Daniel 
confused  Darius  the  Mede  with  Darius  Hystaspis,^ 
based  upon  the  assumption  that  because  Darius  the 
Mede  is  said  in  vi,  i,  to  have  organized  the  empire  into 
120  satrapies,  he  has  confounded  him  with  **  Darius 
Hystaspis  who  actually  organized  the  Persian  empire 
into  satrapies,  though  much  fewer  than  120,"  and 
*'who  established  the  system  of  satrapies'*  of  which 
**the  Behistun  Inscription  enumerates  23,  etc.,"*  the 
answer  is: 

First.  The  author  of  Daniel  does  not  speak  of 
organized  satrapies,  but  simply  of  satraps.  He  does 
not  mention  the  extent  of  their  dominions,  nor  the 
limits  of  their  authority,  except  by  saying  that  "Darius 
set  them  over  the  kingdom."  The  word  *' kingdom" 
as  here  used,  like  *'land"  in  vi,  25,  must  be  defined 
by  the  context.  All  that  the  context  teaches  us  is  that 
Belshazzar  the  Chaldean  was  killed  and  Darius  the 
Mede  received  the  kingdom;  that  is,  obviously,  Bel- 
shazzar's  kingdom.  This  kingdom  was,  probably, 
Chaldea,  Babylon,  Accad,  and  Susiana.  In  addition 
to  this,  as  the  title  ** the  Mede"  implies,  and  as  would 

«  See  p.  162.  •  Driver,  p.  500. 

200 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  201 

certainly  be  true  if  Darius  the  Mede  be  identical  with 
Gobryas,  he  was  also  governor  or  sub-king  of  Gutium  as 
the  Cyrus  Chronicle  relates.  Gutium  was  a  country  of 
undefined  extent,  but  probably  embracing  all  the 
territory  between  Babylonia  on  the  one  side  and 
the  mountains  of  Armenia  to  the  north  and  Mt. 
Zagros  to  the  northeast  on  the  other,  and  perhaps  even 
the  country  beyond  Mt.  Zagros  whose  capital  city  was 
Ecbatana. '  Secondly,  it  can  scarcely  be  said,  in  conform- 
ity with  the  facts  of  history  as  revealed  on  the  monu- 
ments, that  Darius  Hystaspis  established  the  system 
of  satrapies,  if  by  this  is  meant,  as  Dr.  Driver  seems 
to  imply,  that  a  system  of  government  by  officials 
mostly  of  the  governing  race,  appointed  by  the  central 
or  predominant  authority,  was  originated  and  first 
introduced  by  Darius  Hystaspis  as  a  method  of  govern- 
ing subject  races.  However  it  may  have  been  with  the 
monarchs  who  preceded  Sargon  who  reigned  as  king  of 
Assyria  from  722  to  705  B.  c,  it  is  certain  that  his  sys- 
tem of  governing  the  subject  cities  and  peoples  was  by 
means  of  officials,  mostly  Assyrian,  appointed  by  him, 
upheld  by  his  armies  and  authority,  ruling  as  his 
representatives  and  paying  tribute  to  the  dominant 
central  power.  Certain  it  is,  also,  that  this  system 
continued  to  be  used  by  his  successors  in  the  kingdom 
of  Assyria,  and  later,  by  the  kings  of  Babylon  and  by 
Cyrus.  To  give  all  of  the  proofs  for  these  statements 
would  too  much  enlarge  the  extent  of  this  chapter. 


*  See  the  Cyrus  Cylinder^  13.  Winckler  makes  Gutium  a  term  to 
denote  the  country  north  of  Babylonia  probably  of  undefined  and  shift- 
ing limits,  but  embracing  in  the  time  of  Cyrus  the  whole  coimtry  be- 
tween the  Euphrates  and  Tigris  {Untersuchungen^  p.  131).  It  has 
been  shown  above  that  there  may  well  have  been  120  satraps  in  this 
kingdom,  whether  it  were  of  the  larger  or  smaller  extent. 


202  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Sufficient,  however,  will  now  be  given  to  satisfy  the 
unprejudiced  reader,  that  aside  from  the  mere  change 
of  the  names  of  the  officials  from  Assy rio-Baby Ionian 
to  Persian,  no  change,  except  along  the  line  of  develop- 
ment of  Sargon's  original  conception  and  organization, 
can  be  traced  to  Darius  Hystaspis.  Notice,  we  admit 
that  Darius  Hystaspis  was  the  first  to  thoroughly 
organize  the  Persian  government  as  Canon  Rawlinson 
has  clearly  shown,  ^  and  that  he  carried  on  the  govern- 
ment by  means  of  subordinates  commonly  called  sa- 
traps :  but  we  claim,  that  such  a  system  of  government, 
less  perfectly  organized,  was  in  existence  for  at  least  two 
hundred  years  before  this  time,  and  that  while  the 
Persians  did  introduce  a  new  name  for  the  subordinate 
rulers  of  the  subject  states,  they  did  not  essentially 
change  the  system  in  vogue  before  this  time.  They  sim- 
ply perfected  a  system  which  was  already  in  existence, 
and  which  has  been  called  from  them  the  satrapial 
system.  This  system  involved  three  principles: — a 
government  by  officials  representing  the  king  and  ap- 
pointed by  him,  a  fixed  burden  of  tribute,  and  ''the 
establishment  of  a  variety  of  checks  and  counter- 
poises among  the  officials  to  whom  it  was  necessary  that 
the  crown  should  delegate  its  powers."^  As  bearing 
upon  the  present  discussion,  it  is  only  necessary  that  we 
should  bring  forth  evidence  to  show  that  the  first  of 
these  three  principles, — to  wit,  government  by  officials 
representing  the  king  and  appointed  by  him,  was  in 
existence  before  the  time  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  and 
especially  that  it  was  in  existence  under  Gyrus,  and 
that  it  would  have  been  used  by  a  sub-king  of  Cyrus, 
such  as  we  believe  Darius  the  Mede  to  have  been. 
Before  citing  our  evidence,  it  may  be  well  to  summarize 
I  Ancient  Monarchies,  vol.  iii,  416  seg.         *  Rawlinson,  id.,  iii,  417. 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  203 

the  main  points  of  the  satrapial  system  of  government 
as  they  are  given  in  that  most  excellent  work  of  the 
late  Canon  Rawlinson,  Professor  of  Ancient  History  in 
the  University  of  Oxford,  which  he  gives  us  in  the 
third  volume  of  his  Ancient  Monarchies,  in  the  seventh 
chapter  of  his  history  of  the  Fifth  Monarchy,  in  his 
account  of  the  organization  of  the  empire  of  Persia. 
For  convenience  of  comparison  with  the  system  of  the 
predecessors  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  what  Prof.  Rawlinson 
says  may  be  treated  under  the  following  captions. 

First,  the  satraps  were  appointed  by  the  king,  but 
the  native  kings  sometimes  were  allowed  to  reign  as 
subordinates. 

Secondly,  they  had  some  of  the  powers  and  pre- 
rogatives of  a  king,  i.  e.,  they  had  armies,  levied  taxes, 
and  possessed  palaces  and  seraglios. 

Thirdly,  the  subject  nations  were  allowed  **to  retain 
their  languages,  habits,  manners,  religion,  laws,  and 
modes  of  local  government. " 

Beginning  our  evidence  that  the  Assyrians  had  a 
government  similar  to  that  of  the  Persians  with  Sargon, 
the  king  of  Assyria,  who  reigned  from  722  to  705  B.C., 
we  find: 

I.  That  he  also  appointed  governors  of  the  subject 
provinces  and  cities  and  sometimes  allowed  the  native 
kings  to  reign  as  subordinates. 

(a)  As  to  provinces,  he  is  found  using  the  frequently 
recurring  phrase  **my  officers  I  set  as  governors  over 
them,"  e.  g.  in  the^wwa/5  (lines  7-io,Winckler's  edition), 
Sargon  says  that  he  appointed  his  officers  to  be  gover- 
nors over  the  lands  of  Rapiku,  all  Chaldea,  Hasmar, 
the  distant  Medes,  Namri,  Illibi,  Bit-Hamban,  Parsua, 
Man,  Urartu,  Kasku,  Tabal,  and  Muski.' ,  :._^' - 

'  Amdu  shuparshakishu  shaknuti  Ueshunu  ishtakkanu.     So  also  in  the 


204  The  Book  of  Daniel 

In  line  19  of  the  same  inscription,  he  speaks  of  the 
shaknu,  or  deputy-governor,  of  the  city  of  Babylon  and 
of  the  shaknu  of  the  land  of  Gambuli,  and  in  line  12  of 
placing  an  officer  as  bel  pihati  over  the  whole  of  the 
broad  land  of  Miluhhi  (Ethiopia)  including  Egypt 
(unless  Ashdod  alone  is  meant  in  the  passage).  In  the 
Display  inscription  17-22,  he  speaks  of  setting  his 
officers  as  governors  (bel  pihati)  over  Jatnana,  Muski, 
the  broad  land  of  Aharri  (Amurri),  the  entire  land  of  the 
Hittites,  all  Gutium,  the  distant  Medes,  Illibi,  Rashi, 
the  tribes  of  the  Lu*,  the  Rubu*,  the  Harilum,  the 
Kaldudu,  the  Hamranu,  the  Ubulum,  the  Ru'ua,  the 
Li'ittaui,  the  Gambulu,  the  Hindaru,  the  Pukudu, 
all  the  desert-dwelling  Suti  of  Jatburi,  certain  cities 
of  Elam,  the  land  of  Ganduniash,  upper  and  lower,  the 
land  of  Bit-mukkani,  the  land  of  Bit-Dakkuri,  the  land 
of  Bit-Shilani,  the  whole  land  of  Bit-Sa*alla,  all  the  land 
of  Kaldi,  the  land  of  Bit-Jakin,  and  the  region  of 
Dilmun. ' 

inscription  from  Hall  xiv,  p.  29,  he  says  he  had  appointed  his  officers  to 
be  deputies  (shaknuti)  over  Media,  Illipi,  Andia,  Zikirtu,  Man,  the 
Hittite  lands  of  Gargamish  and  Kummuh  and  Kammanu,  and  his 
governors  (bel  pihati)  over  Gamgumi,  (perhaps)  Egypt,  and  Miluhhi 
(certainly),  Ashdod,  Bit-Humri,  Kasku,  Tabal,  Hilakku,  Muski,  Gaza, 
the  sub-kingdoms  of  Jatnana,  Kaldu, — the  totality  of  which  proud  land 
he  divided  between  the  deputies  (shaknuti)  of  Babylon  and  Gambulu, 
— Dilmun,  Sharru,  Hatti,  Gutium,  Rashi,  Elam,  the  Arameans  on  the 
Tigris,  the  Suti,  Jutluri,  Sam'una,  Ganduniash,  and  Bit-Jakin. 

*  For  similar  statements,  see,  also  the  Pavement  inscription  ii,  4-16, 
iii,  5-22,  V,  14-27.  On  the  Pavement  inscription  iv,  16-27,  he  says 
that  he  placed  governors  (shaknuti)  over  Shurda,  Harhar,  Media,  Illipi, 
Andia,  Zikirtu,  Man,  Amatti,  Kummuhi,  and  Kammanu;  and  on  JF" 
he  says  further,  that  he  put  his  governor  (bel  pihati)  over  Bit-Humria, 
Jamnaai,  Kasku,  all  Tabal,  Hilakku,  Muski,  Rapihi,  Ja'  Jatnanu, 
Kaldi,  Babylon,  Gambuli,  Dilmun,  Amurru,  Hatti,  Gutium,  Media, 
Illipi,  Rashi,  the  people  of  Itu;  Rubu',  Harilum,  Kaldudu,  Hamranu, 
Ubulimi,  Ru'ua,  Litaai,  Hindaru,  Pukudu,  the  desert-dwelling  Suti  of  the 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  205 

Frequent  mention  also  is  made  by  Sargon  of  gover- 
nors of  particular  countries.  Thus,  in  the  Annals,  line 
188,  he  gave  over  the  land  of  Kammanu  to  his  officer 
{amelu  shuparshakia) ;  in  line  214,  he  sets  an  officer 
{atnelu  shuparshakia)  as  bel  pihati  over  the  new  inhabi- 
tants of  the  land  of  Gamgumi;  in  line  372,  he  speaks  of 
his  officer  the  deputy  governor  of  the  land  of  K^;* 
in  line  401,  he  says  he  numbered  Muttallu  of  Kummuh 
among  the  governors  of  his  land  ;*  in  the  stele  inscription 
i,  63,  he  speaks  of  putting  his  officer  as  governor  (shaknu) 
over  the  land  of  the  Assyrians  whom  he  had  settled  in 
the  land  of  Hammath. 

(b)  As  to  cities,  also,  we  find  a  similar  phrase,  "I 
set  my  officer  as  governor  over  it, "  e.  g..  Annals ,  lines 
11-17,  "my  officer  I  set  as  deputy ^  over  the  city  of 
Samaria."  Line  68,  he  sets  an  officer  as  governor  (bel 
pihati)  over  Kishshim  and  in  line  72  he  does  the  same 
for  Harhar;  in  line  399  he  does  the  same  for  Uliddu 
which  he  settled  with  people  from  Bit-Jaldn  and  reck- 
oned this  governor  among  the  governors  of  his  land 
(line  401). 

(c)  Or,  the  governor  or  deputy,  may  have  been  set 
over  several '  cities,  e.  g.,  in  Annals,  hne  22,  he  sets  his 
officer  as  governor  (bel  pihati)  over  Ashdod,  Gaza,  and 
Asdudimmu. 

(d)  Also,  there  might  be  one  deputy  appointed  over 
a  number  of  native  rulers  of  one  land,  e.  g.,  in  Annals, 
254-259,  he  puts  over  the  sheikhs  (nasikatt)  of  Gambuli 
one  of  his  officers  as  governor  (Jbel  pihati). 


land  of  Jatburi,  Sam 'una,  Ganduniash  upper  and  lower,  Bit-Amukkani, 
Bit-Dakuri,  Bit-Shilani,  Bit-Sa'  alia,  all  the  land  of  Kaldi,  Bit-Jakin, 
and  Dilmun.  »  Amelu  shuparshakia  amelu  shdknuha  matt  J^ui, 

'  Hit  amelu  bel  pihati  Matiya. 

}  Shaknu;  but  Display  inscription  i,  22  hel  pihati. 


2o6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

(e)  Also,  there  might  be  several  deputies  in  one  land, 
e,  g.y  in  the  Display  inscription  i,  38,  Sargon  speaks  of 
the  great  deputies  (shaknuH  rahuti)  of  the  land  of  the 
Manneans. 

(f)  We  find,  also,  that  the  native  kings  were  in  some 
cases  permitted  to  continue  their  reign  as  subordinates 
to  the  central  authority  at  Nineveh.  E.  g.,  in  the 
Annals,  lines  97,  98,  it  is  said  that  Sargon  received 
tribute  from  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt,  Samsi,  queen  of 
Aribbi,  and  It 'anna,  king  of  the  Sabeans.  In  line  215- 
219,  Sargon  tells  how  he  deposed  Azuri,  king  of  Ashdod, 
and  set  up  his  brother  Ahimiti  in  his  place.  In  the 
Display  inscription,  lines  145-149,  he  tells  of  the  sub- 
mission and  tribute  of  the  sub-kings  of  Ja*  in  Jatnuna 
(Cyprus). 

(g)  The  extent  of  the  country  ruled  over  by  these 
satraps  varied  from  time  to  time.  E.  g.,  in  the  Annals, 
42-45,  Sargon  says  that  he  captured  Shinuhtu,  the 
capital  of  Kiakki,  and  gave  it  to  Matti  of  the  land  of 
Atun.  In  66  and  67  he  conquered  certain  districts  of 
the  land  of  Naksama  and  added  them  to  the  province 
of  Parsuash.^  In  67-70,  he  conquered  the  land  of  Bit- 
Sagbat,  and  several  others,  and  joined  them  to  the 
government  of  Kisheshim,  whose  name  he  had  changed 
to  Kar-Aden.  In  70-73,  he  conquers  the  Urikatu  and 
five  other  districts  (nagi)  and  adds  them  to  the  pre- 
fecture of  Harhar,  changing  the  name  to  Karsharrukin. 
In  99,  100,  he  takes  two  fortresses  from  Mita,  king  of 
Muski,  and  adds  them  to  the  land  of  Kui.  In  365- 
369,  he  conquers  parts  of  Elam  and  gives  them  into  the 
hands  of  his  officials  the  deputies  {shaknuti)  of  Babylon 
aiid  Gambuli. 

\ 

*  Eli  pihat  matt  Parsuash, 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  207 

2.  The  governors  of  Sargon,  like  the  satraps  of  Persia, 
had  many  of  the  powers  and  prerogatives  of  a  king. 

(a)  They  had  armies  under  their  command.  For 
example,  Sargon  says  in  his  Annals ^  304-307,  that  he 
sent  his  governors  {bel  pihatt)  against  the  Hamaranai 
who  had  taken  possession  of  Sippar.  In  371-379,  he 
says,  that  while  he  himself  had  been  conquering  the 
Chaldeans  and  Arameans,  his  oflScial,  the  deputy  of 
Kui,  had  been  sent  against  Mita,  king  of  Muski,  had 
conquered  him  and  brought  some  thousands  of  his 
warriors  as  prisoners  before  him  in  Elam.  In  386,  he 
sends  a  trusty  officer  with  phosen  troops  on  an  expedi- 
tion apparently  to  Cyprus,  and  he  brings  back  the 
booty  to  Sargon  in  Babylon.  In  388-399,  he  sent  his 
officers  with  their  troops  against  Muttallu  of  Kummuh, 
who  conquered  him  and  brought  the  booty  to  Sargon 
at  Kalhu,  and  he  made  his  officers  governors  over  the 
newly  conquered  country.  In  408  he  sent  some  of 
his  governors  {bel  pihatt)  to  aid  Ispabara  in  the  war 
against  the  king  of  Elam. 

(b)  They  levied  taxes.  This  is  implied  in  the  fact 
that  they  all  paid  tribute  to  the  king  of  Assyria.  E.  g., 
in  Annals,  10,  it  is  said,  that  Sargon  placed  his  governors 
over  the  lands  of  Chaldea,  Media,  Tabal,  and  others, 
and  placed  upon  them  a  tribute.  This  tribute  they 
levied  as  they  saw  fit,  the  Assyrian  kings  caring  more 
for  the  money  than  for  the  means  by  which  it  was 
gotten.  A  good  example  of  the  fact  that  the  governors 
levied  taxes  is  found  in  the  Annals  of  Ashurbanipal,  Col. 
ix,  117,  where  it  says,  that  the  people  of  Usu  had  shown 
themselves  disobedient  to  their  governors  and  had 
given  them  no  tribute;  whereupon  Ashurbanipal  him- 
self punished  the  rebellious  people. 

(c)  They  had  palaces.      For  example,  when  the  king 


2o8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

of  the  city  of  Ashdod  refused  to  give  tribute,  Sargon 
besieged  and  conquered  it  and  spoiled  the  treasure  of  his 
palace.  ^  ICiakki,  also,  of  the  city  of  Shinuhtu  was  think- 
ing of  not  paying  his  tribute,  when  Sargon  conquered 
him  and  captured  his  wife,  sons,  daughters,  and  his 
palace  servants.  *  Pishiri  of  Carchemish  rebelled  and 
Sargon  captured  the  treasures  of  his  palace;^  so,  also, 
with  Bel-shur-usur  of  Kisheshim. -*  Again,  Ashurbani- 
pal  says  in  his  Annals^  that  he  captured  the  treasure  of 
the  palace  of  Dunanu  of  Gambuli. 

(d)  They  had  seraglios.  For  example,  Dalta,  king 
of  Illipi,  had  at  least  two  wives;  for  Nibi  and  Ispabara 
are  called  the  sons  of  his  wives.  ^  Again,  Ashurbanipal 
says  in  his  Annals'',  that  he  captured  Dunanu  of  Gam- 
buli, a  rebel,  and  his  wife,  his  sons,  his  daughter  and  his 
concubines,  his  male  and  female  musicians,  etc. 

3.  The  subject  nations  retained  their  own  religion 
and  local  government.  This  is  plain  from  the  history 
of  Israel  and  Judah  as  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament; 
and  it  was  true  of  every  other  nation,  so  long  as  they  did 
not  by  rebellion  force  the  Assyrians  to  destroy  them 
utterly.  For  example,  the  nisakkus  of  the  Aramaic 
tribes  retained  their  names  and  deities  after  they  were 
compelled  to  pay  tribute;*  so  with  those  of  Gambuli,* 
and  Jatbur.'° 

So  also,  the  Egyptians,  Babylonians,  Arameans, 
Arabs,  Medes,  and  all  others  were  allowed  to  retain 
their  own  gods  and  worship,  so  long  as  they  did  not 
enrage  the  kings  of  Assyria  beyond  endurance  by  their 
rebellions.     In  case  only  of  a  war  to  the  death,  were  the 

«  Annals,  215-226.  «  Id.,  42-44,                    »  Id.,  46-50. 

*Id.  68-70.  $  Cyl,  D,  Col.  vi,  22. 

^Annals  of  Sargon,  404.  7  Cyl,  B,  Col.  vl,  10-23. 

«  Annals,  264-270.  » Id.,  255-264.                 "  Id.,  280-284. 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  209 

gods  of  the  enemy  carried  away,  as  was  done  with  20 
gods  of  Elam,  when  Susa  was  conquered  and  de- 
stroyed by  Ashurbanipal. '  Once,  Ashurbanipal  imposed 
the  eariier  worship  (?)  and  religious  customs  (?)  of 
Ashur  and  Belit  and  the  gods  of  Assyria  upon  the  people 
of  Akkad,  Chaldea,  Aram,  and  the  sea-lands. ' 

Secondly,  having  thus  shown,  that  the  government 
of  the  Persian  empire  under  Darius  Hystaspis  did  not 
differ  essentially  from  that  of  the  Assyrian  empire 
under  Sargon;  and  that  the  sameness  of  the  methods 
of  government  of  the  Assyrians  and  Persians  will  be 
evident  to  anyone  who  substitutes  the  word  *  *  satrap  **  for 
deputy  {shaknu)  and  governor  {bel  pihati)  in  Sargon's 
inscriptions,  or  vice  versa^  the  Assyrian  words  for  deputy 
and  governor  for  satrap  in  the  records  bearing  upon 
the  form  of  government  among  Persians, — in  other  words 
that  the  difference  between  the  two  systems  is  one  of 
nomenclature,  or  language,  rather  than  one  of  essence,  or 
fact;  we  come  next  to  a  consideration  of  whether  there 
could  have  been  120  satraps  in  the  sub-kingdom  of 
Darius  the  Mede.  We  have  seen  above  that  the  sub- 
kingdom  most  probably  embraced  Gutium,  over  which 
Gobryas  had  been  governor  before  the  taking  of  Baby- 
lon by  the  Persians,  Chaldea,  Accad,  and  Susa,  over 
which  Belshazzar  had  most  likely  reigned  as  sub-king 
to  Nabonaid,  and  Babylon,  over  which  Belshazzar 
had  been  de  facto  king  after  the  capture  of  his  father 
Nabunaid  and  over  which  Cyrus  made  Gobryas  gover- 
nor after  its  conquest.  Having  been  given  so  much  of 
the  Babylonian  empire,  it  is  altogether  probable,  also, 
that  Cyrus,  who  was  busied  with  the  affairs  of  his  wars 
and  much  greater  empire,  extending  from  the  Indus  to 
the  Bosphorus,  may  have  entrusted  the  whole  of  the 

» Rassam  Cylinder^  Col.  vi,  30-44.  ■  /i.,  Col.  iv,  97-107. 

>4 


2IO  The  Book  of  Daniel 

realm  of  Nabunaid  to  Gobryas,  this  trusty  servant  and 
able  general,  to  administer  in  his  behalf  and  as  his 
representative.  At  any  rate,  no  one  knows  anything 
to  the  contrary.  It  is  probable,  again,  that  Cyrus, 
when  he  had  seized  Ecbatana,  after  the  defeat  and 
capture  of  Astyages,^  would  deliver  the  governorship 
of  Media  into  the  hands  of  one  of  the  Medes  who  had 
been  a  partisan  of  his  cause  during  the  confict  with 
Astyages.  As  late,  certainly,  as  Darius  Hystaspis, 
subjects  other  than  Persian,  especially  MedeSj  were  at 
times  made  deputy  rulers  for  the  king  of  Persia.  For 
example,  Dadarshish,  an  Armenian,  was  the  general  of 
Cyrus  in  command  against  the  rebellious  Armenians.'' 
This  Dadarshish  may  be  the  same  man  who  is  latet 
called  a  Persian,  who  was  satrap  of  Bactria.^  Again, 
Takhmaspada  and  Vindafra,  both  Medes,  were  generals 
of  Darius  Hystaspis  in  his  wars  against  the  rebellious 
Sagartians  and  Babylonians.  ^  Further,  Darius  Hystas- 
pis announces  it  as  his  policy  and  custom  to  favor  all 
who  are  friendly  to  him  and  to  his  family.  ^  The  tradi- 
tions of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  as  embodied  in  Herod- 
otus and  Xenophon,  would  lead  us  also  to  believe 
that  Cyrus  treated  the  Medes  and  their  rulers  as  his 
especial  favorites  and  with  singular  deference  and  kind- 
ness. So  that,  we  can  well  believe  that  the  realm  over 
which  this  subordinate  Median  king,  Darius  the  Mede, 
ruled  may  have  been  as  great  even  as  the  realm  of  Sar- 
gon  of  Assyria.  Now,  then,  for  the  point.  Sargon 
of  Assyria,  on  the  inscriptions  which  have  come  down  to 
us  and  which  are  published  by  Winckler,  mentions  by 
name  one  hundred  and  fifteen  lands  and  seventeen 

» See  inscription  of  Abu  Habba,  i.,  28-33,  and  the  Cyrus  Chronicle, 
3, 1-3.  "  Behistun  Insc,  ii,  29.  ^Id.,  iii,  13,  14. 

*  Id,,  ii,  82  and  iii,  83.  s  Id.,  i)'  20-22,  iv,  65-67. 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  211 

peoples,  which  were  tributary  to  him;  and  in  most 
cases  states  that  these  tributary  countries  and  peoples 
were  ruled  by  deputies,  or  governors,  appointed  by 
himself.  Why,  then,  may  not  another  king  coming 
between  his  time  and  that  of  Darius  Hystaspis  have 
had  one  himdred  and  twenty  deputies,  or  governors 
(call  them  satraps,  if  you  please),  appointed  by  him 
to  rule  the  subject  lands  and  peoples  in  his  stead? 
Even  if  Darius  Hystaspis  thoroughly  organized  the 
satrapies  and  enlarged  them  and  reduced  their  nimiber 
to  twenty,  as  Herodotus  implies,^  this  would  not  prove 
anything  as  to  the  number  which  the  kings  of  Assyria 
after  Sargon  had,  nor  as  to  the  number  which  the 
kings  of  Babylon  had,  nor  as  to  the  number  which 
Cyrus  and  Cambyses  had,  nor  as  to  the  number  which 
a  sub-king  under  Cyrus  had.  Granting  that  there  was 
a.  Darius  the  Mede,  ruling  a  kingdom  which  was  a 
part  of  the  Persian  empire,  who  can  say  how  many, 
or  how  few,  deputies  and  governors  he  may  have 
appointed  to  administer  his  kingdom  for  him?  A  rose 
by  another  name  would  smell  as  sweet.  So,  whether 
you  call  these  legates  of  the  king  satraps  or  shaknus 
or  deputy-governors,  it  matters  not.  It  is  the  thing 
and  not  the  name  of  the  thing,  that  is  important  here. 

But,  again,  when  Dr.  Driver  says,  that  Darius  Hys- 
taspis on  the  Behistun  Inscription  enumerates  in  one 
place  (Col.  i,  par.  6)  twenty-three  satrapies  and  in  the 
later  (sepulchral)  inscription  of  Naksh-i-Rustam  (lines 
7-19)  twenty-nine,  he  is  begging  the  question  at  issue. 
For,  first,  on  neither  of  these  inscriptions  is  it  said  that 
Darius  Hystaspis  divided  his  kingdom  into  satrapies, 
few  .or  many.  Countries  only  are  mentioned.  Thus 
we  read  on  the  Behistun  Inscription  (Col.  i,  13-27) : 

'Book  III,  89. 


212  The  Book  of  Daniel 

These  are  the  countries  which  submitted  to  me;  through 
the  might  of  Auramazda,  I  became  their  king;  Persia,  Susi- 
ana,  Babylon,  Assyria,  Arabia,  Egypt,  which  is  on  the  sea, 
Sparda,  Ionia,  Media,  Armenia,  Cappadocia,  Parthia, 
Drangiana,  Asia,  Chorasmia,  Bactria,  Sogdiana,  Gandara, 
the  Sacae,  the  Sattagetse,  Arachosia  and  Maka,  altogether 
twenty-three  countries.  Thus  saith  Darius  the  king. 
These  are  the  lands  which  submitted  to  me;  through  the 
grace  of  Auramazda  they  became  my  servants,  they  brought 
me  tribute,  what  was  commanded  them  by  me  day  or  night, 
they  fulfilled. 

In  the  Naksh-i-Rustam  inscription  v.,  19,  we  read: 

Thus  saith  Darius  the  king;  Through  the  grace  of  Aura- 
mazda, these  are  the  lands,  which  I  seized  outside  Persia; 
I  ruled  them;  they  brought  me  tribute;  what  I  commanded 
them,  they  did;  my  law  was  observed;  Media,  Elam,  Par- 
thia, Aremu,  Bactria,  Sug'da,  Chorasmia,  Zaranka,  Ara- 
chosia, Sattagytia,  Gandaria,  India,  the  Saka  Humavarka, 
the  Saka  Tigrakhauda,  Babylon,  Assyria,  Arabia,  Egypt, 
Armenia,  Cappadocia,  Sparda,  Ionia,  the  Saka  who  are 
beyond  the  sea,  the  Sk'udra,  the  lonians  Takabara,  the 
Patiya,  the  K'ashiya,  the  Maciya,  the  Karkas. 

Dr.  Driver  might  have  mentioned,  also,  the  inscrip- 
tion of  Persepolis,'  where  we  find: 

Thus  saith  king  Darius;  Through  the  grace  of  Aura- 
mazda, these  are  the  lands  which  I  rule  with  my  Persian 
army,  which  feared  before  me  and  brought  me  tribute; 
Elam,  Media,  Babylon,  Arabia,  Assyria,  Egypt,  Armenia, 
Cappadocia,  Sparda,  Ionia  of  the  continent,  and  those  of 
the  islands;  and  these  lands  in  the  East,  Asagarta,  Parthia, 
Zaranka,  Aria,  Bactria,  Sug*da,  Chorasmia,  Sattagytia, 
Arachosia,  India,  Gandara,  Saka,  Maka. 

*  Spiegel,  Alipersische  Keilinschriften.  p.  49. 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  213 

As  to  the  rulers  of  these  countries,  he  speaks  twice 
only  of  satraps,  once  of  Dadarshish,  a  Persian,  who  was 
a  satrap  in  Bactria,  and  once  of  a  Vivana  who  was 
satrap  in  Arachosia.  Notice,  that  we  have  said  in 
Bactria  and  in  Arachosia,  not  of  Bactria  and  of  Aracho- 
sia. For  Spiegel  and  Weisbach  and  Bang  translate 
the  words  for  Bactria  and  Arachosia  as  if  the  cases  were 
locatives,  rather  than  genitives.  We  confess  that  we 
are  not  convinced  that  they  must  be  locatives  rather 
than  genitives.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  they  may 
be  locatives  as  well  as  genitives.  And,  if  they  be  loca- 
tives, then  Darius  Hystaspis  says  simply,  that  these 
men  were  satraps,  one  in  Bactria  and  the  other  in 
Arachosia,  admitting  the  possibility  of  one  or  more 
satraps  in  either  country.  The  case  ending  being 
ambiguous,  the  testimony  from  the  case  ending  must, 
also,  be  ambiguous;  so  that  as  evidence  on  either  side 
in  this  controversy,  it  can  determine  nothing.  If  the 
case  be  the  genitive,  then  we  must  admit,  that  these  two 
countries,  Bactria  and  Arachosia,  each  had  a  satrap  at 
some  time  before  the  Behistun  Inscription  was  made. 
This  would  not  prove  that  the  other  coimtries  had 
them  at  all,  much  less  that  they  each  had  but  one.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  be  admitted  that  the  case  is  a 
locative,  then  Bactria  and  Arachosia  may  have  had  more 
than  one  satrap  and  the  whole  argument  derived  from 
there  being  a  satrap  over  each  country  and  only  about 
thirty  countries  for  satraps  to  rule  over  would  fall  to  the 
ground.  Here,  also,  let  me  reiterate  the  statement, 
that  even  if  Darius  Hystaspis  organized  his  kingdom 
into  about  thirty  satrapies,  this  would  not  prove  any- 
thing as  to  the  number  or  organization  before  his  time, 
— under  Cyrus,  for  example. 

Further,  we  cannot  gather  from  the  Behistun  Inscrip- 


214  The  Book  of  Daniel 

tion,  that  these  two  satraps  there  mentioned  were 
anything  more  than  generals  of  the  armies  of  their 
respective  countries  where  they  hailed  from.  Neither 
of  them  is  ever  spoken  of  as  having  performed  any 
duties  except  as  general  of  an  army,  Dadarshish  against 
the  rebelHous  Margians  and  Vivana  against  the  Per- 
sians. 

Nor  are  all  the  countries  of  his  empire  mentioned 
on  any  one  of  the  inscriptions,  but  only  those  he  con- 
quered again.  Again,  it  will  be  noted  that  no  two  of 
the  lists  agree  exactly,  either  in  the  number  or  order 
of  the  countries  mentioned;  nor  do  all  three  lists  to- 
gether mention  all  the  countries  under  the  dominion  of 
Darius  Hystaspis,  his  own  inscriptions  being  witness. 

For  first,  the  Naksh-i-Rustam  inscription  makes 
three  divisions  of  the  Sacse  and  adds  the  names  of  the 
Skudra,  Putiya,  Kushi3^a,  Maciya,  and  Karkas  to  those 
mentioned  in  the  Behistun  inscription,  while  it  omits 
the  Maka  and  Margiana.  The  Persepolis  inscription^ 
divides  the  lonians  into  those  of  the  continent  and 
those  of  the  islands  and  adds  India  to  the  list  of  con- 
quered lands;  but  otherwise  agrees  in  number  and 
names  with  the  Behistun,  but  not  in  the  order  of  the 
names. 

Secondly,  it  will  be  noted,  that  in  the  Behistun  In- 
scription Darius  Hystaspis  mentions  as  subject  to  him 
countries  other  than  those  given  in  any  of  these  lists. 
Such  are  the  Autiyara  (Beh.  ii,  58).  Kampada  (Beh.  ii, 
2"]),  Gandutava  (Beh.  iii,  65),  Nisaya  (Beh.  i,  58),  Pai- 
shiyauvada  (Beh.  iii,  42,  perhaps  a  city),  Patishuvar 
(NRc,  a  people),  Raga  (Beh.  ii,  71),  and  Hyrcania 
(Beh.  ii,  92).  While  most  of  these  are,  doubtless,  sub- 
divisions of  the  greater  countries  mentioned  in  the  lists, 

=  H  by  Spiegel. 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  215 

this  can  hardly  be  the  case  with  Gandutava  and  Hyr- 
cania.  Thus  we  see  that  Darius  Hystaspis  mentions 
in  all  thirty-four  distinct  countries;  and  that,  count- 
ing the  lands  that  were  subdivisions,  there  are  forty 
countries  all  told  mentioned  in  the  Persian  inscriptions 
as  being  under  the  rule  of  the  great  king,  or  king  of 
kings. 

Dr.  Driver  further  cites  Herodotus,^  as  stating  that 
Darius  Hystaspis  divided  his  kingdom  into  twenty 
satrapies.  Herein,  Dr.  Driver  is  correct  in  his  cita- 
tion. However,  before  discussing  the  bearing  of  this 
on  the  matter  before  us,  we  shall  quote  the  passage  at 
length  and  entirely  from  Herodotus,  Book  IH,  89-97, 
Gary's  translation.     Darius 

constituted  twenty  governments,  which  they  called  satrapies ; 
and  having  constituted  the  governments  and  set  governors 
over  them,  he  appointed  tributes  to  be  paid  to  him  from 
each  nation,,  both  connecting  the  adjoining  people  with  the 
several  nations,  and  omitting  some  neighboring  people,  he 
annexed  to  some  others  that  were  more  remote.  He  dis- 
tributed the  governments  and  the  annual  payment  of 
tribute  in  the  following  manner.  Such  of  them  as  contrib- 
uted silver  were  required  to  pay  it  according  to  the  stand- 
ard of  the  Babylonian  talent;  and  such  as  contributed  gold, 
according  to  the  Euboic  talent.  The  Babylonian  talent 
is  equal  to  seventy  Euboic  minag.  During  the  reign  of 
Cyrus,  and  afterward  of  Cambyses,  there  were  no  fixed 
regulations  with  regard  to  tribute,  but  they  brought  in 
presents.  In  consequence  of  this  imposition  of  tribute,  and 
other  things  of  a  similar  kind,  the  Persians  say  Darius 
was  a  trader,  Cambyses  a  master,  and  Cyrus  a  father. 
The  first,  because  he  mads  profit  of  everything;  the  second, 
because  he  was  severe  and  arrogant;  the  third,  because  he 
was  mild,  and  always  aimed  at  the  good  of  his  people.  (90). 
■   »  See  Bk.  Ill,  8q. 


2i6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

From  the  lonians,  the  Magnesias  in  Asia,  the  -^olians,  Cari- 
ans,  Lycians,  Milyens,  and  Pamphylians  (for  one  and  the 
same  tribute  was  imposed  on  them  all)  there  came  in  a  rev- 
enue of  four  hundred  talents  in  silver;  this,  then,  composed 
the  first  division.  From  the  Mysians,  Lydians,  Lasonians, 
Cabalians,  and  Hygennians,  five  hundred  talents;  this  was 
the  second  division.  From  the  Hellespontians,  who  dwell 
on  the  right  as  one  sails  in,  the  Phrygians,  the  Thracians  in 
Asia,  Paphlagonians,  Mariandynians,  and  Syrians,  there 
was  a  tribute  of  three  hundred  and  sixty  talents;  this  was  the 
third  division.  From  the  Cilicians,  three  hundred  and 
sixty  white  horses,  one  for  every  day,  and  five  hundred 
talents  of  silver;  of  these  a  hundred  and  forty  were  expended 
on  the  cavalry,  that  guarded  the  Cilicians*  territory,  and  the 
remaining  three  hundred  and  sixty  went  to  Darius;  this 
was  the  fourth  division.  (91).  From  the  city  of  Poseideium, 
which  Amphilochus,  son  of  Amphiaraus,  founded  on  the 
confines  of  the  Cilicians  and  Syrians,  beginning  from  this 
down  to  Egypt,  except  a  district  belonging  to  Arabinas, 
which  was  exempt  from  taxation,  was  paid  a  tribute  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  talents;  and  in  this  division  is  included  all 
Phoenicia,  Syria  which  is  called  Palestine,  and  Cyprus;  this 
was  the  fifth  division.  From  Egypt  and  the  Libyans 
bordering  on  Egypt,  and  from  Cyrene  and  Barce  (for  these 
were  annexed  to  the  Egyptian  division),  accrued  seven 
hundred  talents,  besides  the  revenue  arising  from  Lake 
Moeris,  which  was  derived  from  the  fish;  in  addition,  then, 
to  this  money,  and  the  fixed  supply  of  corn,  there  accrued 
seven  hundred  talents;  for  they  furnish  in  addition  120,000 
measures  of  corn  for  the  Persians  who  occupy  the  white 
fortress  at  Memphis,  and  their  allies;  this  was  the  sixth 
division.  The  Sattagydae,  Gandarians,  Dadicae,  and 
Aparytae,  joined  together,  contributed  one  hundred  and 
seventy  talents;  this  was  the  seventh  division.  From  Susa, 
and  the  rest  of  the  country  of  the  Cissians,  three  hundred 
talents;  this  was  the  eighth  division.  (92).  From  Babylon 
and  the  rest  of  Assyria  there  accrued  to  him  a  thousand 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  217 

talents  of  silver  and  five  hundred  young  eunuchs;  this  was 
the  ninth  division.  From  Ecbatana  and  the  rest  of  Media, 
and  the  Paricanians  and  Orthocorybantes,  four  hundred  and 
fifty  talents;  this  was  the  tenth  division.  The  Caspians, 
Pausicae,  Pantimathians,  Daritae,  contributing  together, 
paid  two  hundred  talents;  this  was  the  eleventh  division. 
From  the  Bactrians  as  far  as  the  Aeglae  was  a  tribute  of 
three  hundred  and  sixty  talents ;  this  was  the  twelfth  divi- 
sion. (93).  From  Pactyica,  and  the  Armenians,  and  the 
neighboring  people  as  far  as  the  Euxine  Sea,  four  hun- 
dred talents;  this  was  the  thirteenth  division.  From  the 
Sagartians,  Thamanaeans,  Sarangeans,  Utians,  Mycians, 
and  those  who  inhabit  the  islands  of  the  Red  Sea,  in  which 
the  king  settles  transported  convicts,  from  all  these  came  a 
tribute  of  six  hundred  talents;  this  was  the  fourteenth 
division.  The  Sacae  and  Caspians  paid  two  hundred  and 
fifty  talents ;  this  was  the  fifteenth  division.  The  Parthians, 
Chorasmians,  Sogdians,  and  Arians,  three  hundred  talents; 
this  was  the  sixteenth  division.  (94).  The  Paricanians  and 
Asiatic  Ethiopians  paid  four  hundred  talents;  this  was  the 
seventeenth  division.  The  Matienians,  Saspires,  and 
Alarodians  were  taxed  at  two  hundred  talents;  this  was  the 
eighteenth  division.  From  the  Moschians,  Tibarenians, 
Macronians,  Mosynoecians,  and  Marsians,  three  hundred 
talents  were  demanded;  this  was  the  nineteenth  division. 
Of  the  Indians  the  population  is  by  far  the  greatest  of  all 
nations  whom  we  know  of,  and  they  paid  a  tribute  propor- 
tionally larger  than  all  the  rest — three  hundred  and  sixty 
talents  of  gold  dust;  this  was  the  twentieth  division.  (95). 
Now  the  Babylonian  standard,  compared  with  the  Euboic 
talent,  makes  the  total  nine  thousand  five  hundred  and 
forty  talents;  and  the  gold,  estimated  at  thirteen  times  the 
value  of  silver,  the  gold  dust  will  be  found  to  amount  to  four 
thousand  six  hundred  and  eighty  Euboic  talents.  There- 
fore, if  the  total  of  all  these  are  computed  together,  fourteen 
thousand  five  hundred  and  sixty  Euboic  talents  were  col- 
lected by  Darius  as  an  annual  tribute ;  and  passing  over  sums 


2i8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

less  than  these,  I  do  not  mention  them.  (96).  This  tribute 
accrued  to  Darius  from  Asia  and  a  small  part  of  Libya;  but, 
in  the  course  of  time,  another  tribute  accrued  from  the 
islands  and  the  inhabitants  of  Europe  as  far  as  Thessaly. 
This  tribute  the  king  treasures  up  in  the  following  manner; 
having  melted  it,  he  pours  it  into  earthen  jars,  and  having 
filled  it,  he  takes  away  the  earthen  mold,  and  when  he 
wants  money,  he  cuts  off  so  much  as  he  wants  from  time  to 
time. 

(97).  These,  then,  were  the  governments  and  the  imposts 
on  each.  The  Persian  territory  alone  has  not  been  men- 
tioned as  subject  to  tribute,  for  the  Persians  occupy  their  land 
free  from  taxes.  They,  indeed,  were  not  ordered  to  pay  any 
tribute,  but  brought  gifts.  The  Ethiopians  bordering  on 
Egypt,  whom  Cambyses  subdued  when  he  marched  against 
the  Macrobian-Ethiopians,  and  who  dwell  about  the 
sacred  city  of  Nysa,  and  celebrate  festivals  of  Bacchus — ■ 
these  Ethiopians  and  their  neighbors  use  the  same  grain  as 
the  Calantian  Indians,  and  live  in  subterraneous  dwellings 
— both  these  bring  every  third  year,  and  they  continued  to 
do  so  to  my  time,  two  chcenices  of  unmolten  gold,  two 
hundred  blocks  of  ebony,  five  Ethiopian  boys,  and  twenty 
large  elephants'  tusks.  The  Colchians  numbered  themselves 
among  those  who  gave  presents,  as  well  as  the  neighboring 
nations,  as  far  as  Mount  Caucasus;  for  to  this  mountain 
the  dominions  of  Persia  extend;  but  the  people  to  the  north 
side  of  the  Caucasus  pay  no  regard  to  the  Persians.  These, 
then,  for  the  gifts  they  imposed  on  themselves,  furnished 
even  to  my  time,  every  five  years,  one  hundred  boys  and 
one  hundred  virgins.  The  Arabians  also  furnished  every 
year  a  thousand  talents  of  frankincense.  These,  then, 
brought  to  the  king  the  above  gifts,  besides  the  tribute. 

By  comparing  these  satrapies  of  Herodotus  with 
the  countries  mentioned  in  the  Persian  inscriptions,  it 
will  be  seen,  first,  that  Herodotus  sometimes  includes 
two   or  more  of  the   countries   named  by  Darius  in 


Darius  not  a  Confusion  219 

one  of  his  satrapies.  For  example,  the  sixteenth 
satrapy  of  Herodotus  embraces  four  countries  of  the 
inscriptions,  Parthia,  Chorasmia,  Sogdiana,  and  Aria; 
the  seventh  contained  the  Sattagytae,  and  the  Gandari- 
ans  as  well  as  two  other  peoples  not  mentioned  on  the 
monuments,  to  wit,  the  Dadicae  and  the  Aparytas; 
and  the  fourteenth  contained  the  Sarangians  (Dran- 
gians)  and  Mycians  (Maciya)  of  the  Naksh-i-Rustam 
inscription,  and,  also,  the  Sagartians,  Thamaneans, 
Utians,  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  islands  of  the  Red 
Sea. 

Secondly,  the  monuments  mention  some  countries 
which  Herodotus  does  not.  For  example,  Arachosia, 
Maka,  Sparda  (?),  the  Patiya,  the  Kushiya  (Cissians?), 
and  the  Karkas. 

Thirdly,  Herodotus  names  many  countries  and  even 
whole  satrapies  which  are  not  named  on  the  monu- 
ments. For  example,  of  the  five  countries  named  as  in 
the  second  division,  or  satrapy,  of  Herodotus,  not  one  is 
found  on  any  of  the  inscriptions.  Two  of  these  coun- 
tries are  those  of  the  familiar  Mysians  and  Lydians 
and  the  others  are  those  of  the  imfamiliar  Lasonians, 
Cabalians,  and  Hygennians. 

Again,  Herodotus  divides  Asia  Minor,  on  the  near 
side  of  the  river  Halys,  into  four  satrapies;  whereas  in 
this  region,  the  inscriptions  of  Darius  Hystaspis  men- 
tion only  the  lonians  and  the  Cappadocians. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  testimony  of  Herodotus  does 
not  agree  with  that  of  the  Persian  inscriptions  as  to  the 
number  and  limits  of  the  satrapies,  even  if  we  should 
admit  that  the  inscriptions  do  refer  to  satrapies  at  all, 
when  they  name  the  countries  which  submitted  to  the 
rule  of  the  Persian  king. 

Further,  and  finally,  let  us  say  that  it  seems  to  us 


220  The  Book  of  Daniel 

impossible,  with  our  present  knowledge  of  the  whole 
subject,  to  reconcile  the  statements  of  Herodotus  as 
to  the  nimiber  and  extent  of  the  satrapies  as  recorded  in 
Book  III,  89-97,  with  those  made  by  him  in  other 
places,  or  with  those  made  by  Thucydides,  Xenophon, 
Arrian,  and  Strabo.  The  evidence  seems  to  show 
that  like  the  governments  of  Sargon  the  number  and 
extent  of  the  satrapies  was  a  shifting  quantity;  that 
a  satrap  might  have  satraps  under  him;  that  the  name 
satrap  was  indefinite,  and  corresponded  not  merely  to 
the  shaknus  and  bel  pihatis  of  the  Assyrio-Babylonians, 
but  to  the  satraps,  archons,  and  hyparchons  of  the 
Greeks  and  to  the  satraps,  sagans,  and  pehoths  of  the 
Aramaic  of  Daniel:  so  that,  in  conclusion,  we  may  say 
with  some  degree  of  confidence,  that  the  case  against 
the  possibility  of  the  appointment  by  Darius  the  Mede, 
a  sub-king,  satrap,  or  hel  pihatiy  under  Cyrus,  of  120 
satraps  under  him  **to  be  in  all  his  kingdom"  is  not 
supported  by  the  evidence. 

The  book  of  Daniel  says  that  such  an  appointment 
was  made.  We  have  endeavored  to  show,  that  there  is 
nothing  in  language  or  history  against  the  possibility 
of  such  an  appointment.  Until,  therefore,  proofs,  not 
ipse  dixits  and  assertions,  can  be  produced  to  show  that 
the  book  of  Daniel  is  wrong,  and  that  this  statement 
with  regard  to  satraps  cannot  be  true,  we  hope,  that  our 
readers  will  agree  with  us,  that  according  to  the  laws  of 
evidence,  we  are  justified  in  holding  to  the  veracity  and 
historicity  of  Dan.  vi,  i,  when  it  says:  that  "it  pleased 
Darius  [the  Median,  chap,  v,  31]  to  set  over  the  kingdom 
an  hundred  and  twenty  princes  (satraps)  which  should 
be  over  the  whole  kingdom. "  The  burden  of  proof  rests 
upon  those  who  assail  the  veracity  of  this  statement. 


CHAPTER  XI 

DARIUS   THE   MEDE  NOT  A  REFLECTION  OF  DARIUS 
HYSTASPIS 

VI.  It  is  assumed,  further,  that  **  Darius  the  Mede 
is  a  reflection  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  *' ' 

Can  the  author  of  the  charge  of  this  confusion  of  the 
relationship  between  Darius  and  Xerxes  not  see,  that  if 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Daniel  did  not  know  more 
about  Darius  Hystaspis  than  to  suppose  that  he  was  the 
son  instead  of  the  father  of  Xerxes,  that  Darius  Hys- 
taspis was  a  poor  subject  for  reflection  into  the  past? 
Such  discrepancies  between  reflector  and  reflected  are 
to  us  sufficient  proof  that  no  such  reflection  was  made. 
Let  us  inquire  then:  What  evidence  have  we,  in  the  book 
of  Daniel,  that  its  author  knew  anything  about  Darius 
Hystaspis  ?  or  that  he  reflected  back  the  words  and  deeds 
and  circimistances  of  Darius  Hystaspis  to  his  supposi- 
titious homonymous  Mede?  All  that  is  recorded  in  the 
book  of  Daniel  with  regard  to  Darius  the  Mede  are  the 
following  facts : 

First,  he  received  the  kingdom,  apparently  as  the 
immediate  successor  of  Belshazzar,  the  Chaldean  king 
(chapter  v,  31). 

Secondly,  he  was  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the 
Chaldeans  (ix,  i). 

*  See  p.  162  above. 

221 


222  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Thirdly,  he  was  about  62  years  of  age  at  the  time  he 
became  king  of  this  realm  (v,  31). 

Fourthly,  it  pleased  this  Darius  to  set  over  his  realm 
120  satraps  who  should  be  throughout  the  whole  king- 
dom (vi,  i). 

Fifthly,  over  these  satraps  there  were  three  presi- 
dents (vi,  2). 

Sixthly,  these  satraps  were  to  give  account  to  these 
presidents  that  the  king  should  have  no  damage,  (vi,  2). 

Seventhly,  Daniel  was  one  of  these  presidents  (vi,  2). 

Eighthly,  Daniel  was  a  friend  to  the  king  (vi,  14, 
16,  20,  23). 

Ninthly,  Daniel  confirmed  and  strengthened  the 
king  (xi,  i). 

Tenthly,  Darius  sought  to  set  Daniel  over  the  whole 
realm  (vi,  3). 

,  Eleventhly,  Daniel  prospered  in  the  reign  of  Darius 
and  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus  the  Persian. 

Twelfthly ,  this  Darius  made  four  decrees :  one,  that  no 
man  should  pray  to  any  god  but  himself  (vi,  5-9) ;  a 
second,  ordering  Daniel  to  be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions 
(vi,  16) ;  a  third,  commanding  the  accusers  of  Daniel  to 
be  cast  into  the  same  den  from  which  Daniel  had  been 
delivered  (vi,  24) ;  and  a  fourth,  magnifying  the  God 
of  Daniel  because  of  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
delivered  his  servant  Daniel  (vi,  25-27). 

Thirteenthly,  this  Darius  was  a  mixture  of  weakness 
and  cruelt}?",  as  is  shown  in  his  treatment  of  Daniel  and 
his  accusers. 

.  Fourteenthly,  Darius  the  Mede  was  a  son  of  Ahasue- 
rus  (Xerxes)  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes  (ix,  i). 

Fifteenthly,  Darius  the  Mede  reigned  either  before, 
or  along  with,  Cyrus  the  Persian. 

Now,  on  the  basis  of  these  statements  of  the  book  of 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  223 

Daniel  with  regard  to  Darius  the  Mede,  the  question  to 
ask  in  this  connection  is :  Do  we  know  anything  of  the 
Hfe  of  Darius  Hystaspis  which  will  cause  us  to  conclude 
that  these  statements  were  reflections  of  his  words  and 
deeds  and  character? 

In  answering  this  question,  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
consider  the  following  matters. 

First,  the  name  Darius  and  the  family  relationships 
of  the  two  Dariuses,  the  Mede  and  the  Persian. 

Secondly,  the  age  at  which  they  respectively  became 
kings  (Herod.,  I,  209).' 

Thirdly,  the  manner  in  which  they  became  king. ' 

Fourthly,  the  kingdoms  over  which  they  ruled.  ^ 

Fifthly,  their  relations  to  other  kings.  -♦ 

Sixthly,  the  methods  of  government  pursued  by  each.  ^ 

Seventhly,  the  possibility  of  a  man  like  Daniel  stand- 
ing in  such  a  relation  to  the  king  as  the  book  of  Daniel 
says  that  he  did.  ^ 

Eighthly,  the  characters  of  the  Dariuses.' 

First,  then,  what  do  we  know  about  the  family  of 
Darius  Hystaspis,  which  would  cause  us  to  believe 
that  the  author  of  Daniel  reflected  him  back  into  the 
period  preceding,  or  contemporaneous  with,  Cyrus 
the  king  of  Persia  who  conquered  Babylon?  Fortu- 
nately, on  the  father's  side,  we  can  be  as  sure  of  the 
origin  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  as  it  is  possible  to  be  with 
regard  to  any  man.  At  the  very  outset  of  the  Behistun 
Inscription,  he  says  of  himself: 

I  am  Darius,  the  great  king,  the  king  of  kings,  the  king 
of  Persia,  the  king  of  lands,  the  son  of  Hystaspis,  the 
grandson  of  Arsames,  the  Achaemenid.  Darius  the  king 
says:   My  father   is  Hystaspis,  the  father   of   Hystaspis 

« See  p.  238.  =»  See  p.  240.  3  See  p.  243  *  See  p.  244. 

s  See  p.  247.  ^  See  p.  253.  t  See  p.  259. 


224  The  Book  of  Daniel 

was  Arsames,  the  father  of  Arsames  was  Ariaramnes,  the 
father  of  Ariaramnes  was  Teispes,  the  father  of  Teispes  was 
Achaemenes. 

He  repeats  this  genealogy  exactly  in  the  first  of  the 
smaller  inscriptions  of  Behistun  and  in  the  first  of  the 
Persepolis  inscriptions.  In  nearly  all  of  the  other 
inscriptions  of  Darius,  he  is  called  the  son  of  Hystaspis, 
the  Achasmenid.  In  the  Naksh-i-Rustam  inscription, 
he  adds  that  he  was  **a  Persian,  the  son  of  a  Persian,  an 
Aryan  of  Aryan  seed. "  In  the  Suez  inscription  C,  he 
adds:  **I  am  a  Persian."  In  the  Behistun  Inscription, 
he  says,  "our  family  from  old  has  been  royal,  eight  of 
my  family  have  before  this  been  kings.  I  am  the 
ninth.     In  two  lines,  we  are  nine  kings. " 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  these  inscriptions  Darius 
makes  the  following  points  with  regard  to  his  genealogy : 
that,  he  was  an  Aryan  by  race,  a  Persian  by  nationality, 
an  Achaemenid  by  family,  a  king  by  right  of  birth,  and 
the  son  of  a  man  called  Hystaspis.  On  the  other  hand 
the  book  of  Daniel  says,  that  his  Darius  was  a  Mede 
by  nationality  and  race  (for  he  was  of  the  seed  of  the 
Medes,  ix,  l),  and  that  his  father  was  called  Ahasuerus 
(Xerxes).  Except  the  name  and  the  race  for  the 
Medes  and  Aryans  therefore,  there  is  no  similarity 
between  the  two  Dariuses,  as  far  as  genealogy  is 
concerned. 

But,  it  will  be  said,  it  is  abstird  to  suppose,  that  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Daniel  gained  his  information  with 
regard  to  Darius  from  Persian  sources.  The  Greeks, 
however,  give  the  same  genealogies  as  the  Persians 
themselves.  For,  Herodotus  says,'  that  Darius  was 
the  "son  of  Hystaspis,  son  of  Arsames,  one  of  the 
Achaemenides,**  and   that    Hystaspis   "was  governor 

•Book  I,  209. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  225 

(hyparchos)  of  Persia,"'  and  that  Darius  was  a  Per- 
sian.^ All  the  other  classical  authorities  agree  with 
Herodotus  in  these  particulars  with  reference  to  Darius 
Hystaspis ;  so  that  the  author  of  Daniel  could  not  have 
derived  his  information  from  them  and  have  been  ig- 
norant of  these  family  relationships.  The  reflection  of 
Darius  Hystaspis'  genealogy  cannot,  therefore,  have 
been  derived  from  Greek  sources. 

There  remains,  then,  nothing  but  the  Hebrew  sources 
of  information,  and  here  the  only  sources  of  which  we 
know,  outside  of  Daniel  itself,  are  Ezra,  Nehemiah, 
Haggai,  and  Zechariah.  Without  discussing  the  sub- 
ject of  which  Darius  they  mean,  it  is  sufficient  to  say 
that  they  speak  of  Darius  simply^  or  of  Darius  the 
king 4  or  of  king  Darius, ^  or  of  Darius,  king  of  Persia,*^ 
or  of  Darius,  the  Persian.  ^ 

Since,  lastly,  the  Babylonian  monuments  give  us  no 
information  with  reference  to  the  genealogy  of  Darius 
Hystaspis,  apart  from  the  duplicate  of  the  Persian 
inscription  mentioned  above,  never  calling  him  by  any 
title  except  "king  of  Babylon"  or  "king  of  the  lands," 
or  a  combination  of  the  two;  it  is  obvious  that  the 
author  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  even  granting,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  he  did  live  in  the  second  century  B.C., 
could  not,  so  far  as  we  know,  have  had  any  information 
with  regard  to  Darius  Hystaspis,  which  would  have 
caused  him  to  call  him  a  Mede,  or  the  son  of  Xerxes. 

'7^.111,70. 

'  III,  73.  Sometimes,  in  a  loose  sense,  the  Greek  historians  speak  of 
a  king  of  Persia  as  "the  Mede."  But  this  appellation  never  occurs 
in  genealogical  statements. 

3  As  in  Ezra  v,  5,  vi,  12,  14  (?),  Hag.  ii,  10,  Zech.  i,  i,  7. 

*  As  in  Ezra  V,  6,  7,  vi,  i,  13, 15,  Hag.  i,  i,  15. 

s  As  in  Zech.  vii,  i. 

«  As  in  Ezra  iv,  5,  24,  vi,  14  (?).  »  As  in  Neh.  xii,  22. 


226  The  Book  of  Daniel 

The  genealogy  of  the  Darius  of  Daniel  may  have  been  a 
creation  of  the  imagination,  but  it  cannot  have  been  a 
reflection  of  that  of  Darius,  the  son  of  Hystaspis,  the 
son  of  Arsames,  the  son  of  Ariaramnes,  the  son  of 
Teispes,  the  son  of  Achaemenes, — of  the  Darius  who  was 
a  Persian,  the  son  of  a  Persian,  an  Aryan,  of  Aryan 
seed. 

Again,  it  is  assumed,  that  the  author  of  Daniel  sup- 
posed Xerxes  to  be  the  father  and  not  the  son  of  Darius. 
This  is  a  fine  example  of  what  is  called  begging  the 
question.  Of  course,  it  will  be  admitted  by  everyone, 
that,  if  the  author  of  Daniel  meant  Darius  Hystaspis 
by  his  Darius,  then  he  made  a  mistake  in  saying  that  the 
father  of  Darius  Hystaspis  was  Xerxes  (Ahasuerus). 
For,  there  is  no  doubt  that  Darius,  the  first  Persian 
king  of  that  name,  was  the  son  of  Hystaspis.  He  calls 
himself  the  son  of  Hystaspis  on  nearly  every  one  of  his 
inscriptions.  He  claims  also  to  be  a  Persian  of  the 
family  of  the  Acha^menids.  ^  This  is  the  testimony, 
also,  of  Herodotus;'  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  of  every 
other  witness.  It  has  never  been  denied.  Nor  has  it 
ever  been  denied  that  Xerxes  the  commander  of  the 
expedition  which  terminated  at  Salamis  and  Plata:;a 
was  a  son  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  This,  Xerxes  himself 
says  in  all  but  one  of  his  own  inscriptions ;  and  in  that 
one  he  is  called  simply  "Xerxes  the  great  king." 
Herodotus,  also,  calls  him  the  son  of  Darius.  ^ 

But  the  question  here  is  not  about  Darius  the  Persian; 
but,  about  Darius  the  Mede.  If  the  latter  were  a  reflec- 
tion backward  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  we  might  well  ask 
why  the  author  of  Daniel  called  him  Mede  and  why  he 

*  See  especially  Behlstun,  i,  i-6,  A  i-8;  Elwend,  62-70;  Persepolis, 
i,  i-j,  B  1-4;  Suez,  b,  4-8;  Naksh-i-Rustam,  A,  8-15. 

'  VII,  II,  I,  209,  III,  70,  IV,  83,  VII,  224  et  al.         3  VII,  2,  11  et  al 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  227 

called  him  the  son  of  Xerxes,  and  why  he  said  he  was 
of  the  seed  of  the  Medes.  For  the  first  Darius,  king  of 
Persia,  is  explicit  in  all  three  of  these  points.  He  says 
he  was  a  Persian,  the  son  of  Hystaspis,  the  son  of  a 
Persian,  and  of  Aryan  seed.'  In  all  of  these  points, 
except  the  last,  Daniel  and  the  inscriptions  of  Darius 
differ.  As  to  the  last,  since  the  Medes  were  a  division 
of  the  Aryans,^  it  is  clear  that  both  the  Dariuses  are 
represented  as  Aryans.  But  here  the  sameness  of 
description  of  them  ends.  One  was  a  Mede;  the  other, 
a  Persian.  One  was  the  son  of  Xerxes;  the  other  the 
son  of  Hystaspis.  One  had  a  son  named  Xerxes,  who 
succeeded  him  on  the  throne  of  Persia;  the  other,  may, 
or  may  not,  have  had  a  son,  and  if  he  had,  we  know  not 
his  name,  nor  whether  he  succeeded  to  the  government 
of  any  part  of  his  father's  dominions. 

It  is  no  proof  that  a  Xerxes  was  not  the  father  of 
Darius  the  Mede,*  to  say  that  we  know  nothing  from 
any  other  source  about  the  existence  of  this  Xerxes. 

Having  thus  shown  clearly  that  there  is  no  doubt, 
nor  ever  was  any  doubt,  as  to  who  Darius  Hystaspis 
was  as  to  race,  nation,  family,  and  paternity;  and  that 
the  Darius  the  Mede  of  Daniel,  whoever  he  may  have 
been,  cannot  have  been  in  these  respects  a  reflection  of 
Darius  Hystaspis;  we  might  ask  whether  after  all  it  is 
true  that  history  affords  us  no  hint  as  to  who  Darius  the 
Mede  may  have  been.  Can  such  a  Darius  have  existed  ? 
May  he  have  had  a  father  called  Xerxes  ?  May  he  have 
been  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes? 

Taking  these  three  questions  up  in  order,  we  ask, 
first,  whether  a  Mede  called  Darius  may  have  reigned 
for  a  time  over  Chaldea  and  Babylon  as  a  contemporary 
of  Cyrus  and  a  sub-king  under  him?     Having  already 

»  3§e  Naksh-i-Rustam  inscription,  a,  8-15.     '  Herodotus,  VII,  62. 


228  The  Book  of  Daniel 

shown  above  the  possibility  of  someone's  having  thus 
reigned,  we  shall  here  confine  ourselves  to  the  question 
of  whether  this  sub-ruler  may  have  been  called  Darius. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  let  it  be  said,  that  four  of  the 
kings  of  Persia  who  called  themselves  Darius  or  Arta- 
xerxes  assumed  these  names  at  the  time  of  their  ac- 
cession. They  were  to  them  regnal  names.  Just 
as  Octavianus  assumed  the  name  Augustus,  or  the 
first  and  third  Bonapartes  took  the  name  Napoleon 
as  their  regnal  name;  so,  we  are  told  that  the  two 
Ochuses,  and  Arsaces  the  son  of  Darius  Ochus,  and 
Codomannus,  all  changed  their  names,  or  at  least  as- 
sumed another  name  when  they  became  king.  Thus 
Darius  the  Second  was  at  first  called  Ochus  by  the 
Persians.  By  the  Greeks,  he  is  called  Nothus.  On 
the  inscriptions,  he  is  called  simply  and  always,  Darius 
"king  of  the  lands.  "^  Arsaces,  his  son,  the  brother 
of  Cyrus  the  Younger,  changed  his  name  to  Artaxerxes, 
when  he  became  king ;  but  was  known  to  the  Greeks  as 
Artaxerxes  Mnemon.  On  the  inscriptions,  he  is  known 
simply  as  Artaxerxes.  Thus  on  the  Susa  inscription,  we 
read,  ''Artaxerxes,  the  great  king,  the  king  of  kings, 
the  king  of  the  lands,  the  king  of  the  earth,  the  son  of 
king  Darius,"  etc.  On  a  contract  tablet  from  his  reign, 
he  is  called  simply  Artaxerxes,  the  king  of  the  lands.  ^ 

Artaxerxes  the  Third  was  called  Ochus  befoi:e  he 
became  king  and  continued  to  be  so  called  by  the 
Greeks  even  after  his  accession.  Lastly,  Darius  Codo- 
mannus is  said  to  have  assumed  the  name  of  Darius 
when  he  became  king.  ^ 

^  See  the  subscriptions  to  the  tablets  from  his  reign  published  in 
BE.,  vol.  viii,  Prof.  A.  T.  Clay,  editor. 

«  See  BE.,  vol.  x,  p.  2,  and  vol.  ix.  No.  I,  I.  33. 
3Rawlinson:  Anc.  Mon.,  iii,  515, 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  229 

This  custom  of  thus  changing  one's  name  upon  ascend- 
ing the  throne,  may  account  for  the  fact,  that  so  many 
of  the  rebels  against  Darius  Hystaspis  are  represented 
by  him  as  changing  their  names  as  soon  as  they  raised 
the  standard  of  rebelHon.  Thus,  Nadintu-Bel  and 
Atrina  changed  their  names  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  and 
claimed  to  be  sons  of  Nabunaid;  Martij^a  is  said  to  have 
taken  the  name  Imanish;  and  Fravartish  assumed  the 
name  Khshatrita.'  So,  among  the  kings  of  As- 
syria, Pul  assumed  Tiglath-Pileser  as  his  regnal 
name;  Sargon  was  probably  the  regal  name  of  a 
man  who  had  some  other  name  before  he  became 
king;  Ashurbanipal  probably  reigned  in  Babylon 
under  the  name  Kandalanu;  the  great  Cyrus  himself 
is  said  by  Herodotus  to  have  had  another  name  by 
which  he  was  known  while  a  boy.*  Astyages  accord- 
ing to  Ctesias  had  also  the  name  Aspodas.  Cambyses 
the  father  of  Cyrus  the  Great  is  called  Atradates  by 
Nicolaus  Damascenus.  ^  Lastly,  Artaxerxes  II  was  called 
Arshu  and  Artaxerxes  III  Umasu  before  they  became 
kings.  -* 

From  all  the  above  facts,  we  may  conclude  that  it  is 
certainly  probable  that  Darius  the  Mede  was  known 
by  some  other  name  before  he  became  king.  If  we 
assume  that  the  pre-regnal  name  was  Ugbaru  (Gobryas), 
then  we  have  a  man  whose  history  as  revealed  by  the 
Cyrus  Cylinder,  by  Xenophon  in  his  Cyropcediay  and 

^  Behistun  Inscr.,  iv,  10-31.  *  Bk.  I,  113. 

3  Rawlinson:  Ancient  MonarchieSt  iii,  p.  368. 

*  See  the  astronomical  tables  published  by  Kugler  in  Sternhunde  und 
Sterndienst  in  Babel,  page  82,  where  we  read:  ultu  shatti  18  KAN  Arshu 
sha  Artakshatsu  sharru  shumusJiu  nabu  adi  qal  shatti  ij  KAN  Umasu 
sha  Artakshatsu  sharru  nabu,  i.  e.,  from  the  i8th  year  of  Arshu,  whose 
name  was  called  Artaxerxes  the  king,  till  the  13th  year  of  Umasu,  whose 
name  is  called  Artaxerxes  the  king. 


230  The  Book  of  Daniel 

by  the  book  of  Daniel,  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
itself  and  with  all  the  information  revealed  in  all 
the  sources. 

But,  did  Ugbaru  have  a  father  named  Xerxes?  We 
have  no  information  on  this  subject,  except  that  the 
writer  of  Daniel  says  that  the  father  of  his  Darius  was 
Xerxes.  Now,  it  is  perfectly  certain,  that  if  there  was  a 
Darius  the  Mede  at  all,  he  must  have  had  a  father,  and 
this  father  must  have  had  a  name.  Why  not,  then,  a 
father  named  Xerxes?  There  is  nothing  known  about 
the  naming,  or  the  name,  of  Xerxes  the  son  of  Darius 
Hystaspis  to  show  that  he  was  the  first  of  that  name; 
and  we  know  from  the  fact  that  there  was  a  Xerxes  the 
Second  the  son  of  Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  that  Xerxes 
the  Great  was  not  the  last,  nor  the  only,  one  of  that 
name.  Why,  then,  may  there  not  have  been  a  third  of 
the  name,  preceding  the  first,  and  a  Median,  as  the 
second  and  third  of  the  name  were  Persians  ? 

It  is  not  enough  simply  to  assert  that  the  writer  of 
Daniel  became  confused  and  stated  by  mistake  that 
Xerxes  was  the  father  instead  of  the  son  of  Darius. 
This  might  be  accepted  as  an  explanation  of  an  error  of 
the  kind,  after  the  error  had  been  proven.  But  to 
make  the  assertion  of  confusion  in  order  to  prove  the 
error  is  contrary  to  all  the  laws  of  evidence  and  com- 
mon sense.  That  John  Smith's  son  is  named  Peter  does 
not  prove  that  another  Peter  Smith's  father  was  not 
called  John.  That  a  Henry  king  of  England  followed  a 
Richard  does  not  prove  that  a  Richard  had  not  followed 
a  Henry  sometime  before.  Blessed  is  the  man  who 
knows  his  own  father;  twice  blessed  is  he,  who  knows 
the  father  of  a  man  living  more  than  two  thousand 
years  ago. 

It  might  be  well  just  here  to  ask  how  two  Medes 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  231 

cotdd  have  had  names  which  we  certainly  know  were 
each  the  name  of  several  kings  of  Persia.  That  is, 
could  two  Medes  of  the  time  of  Cyrus  have  had  the 
names  Xerxes  and  Darius?  Or,  are  not  these  names 
in  themselves  evidence  of  a  reflection  backward  of 
Darius  Hystaspis  and  his  son  Xerxes,  and  of  a  con- 
fusion between  their  relationship  to  each  other?  The 
possibility  of  cogency  in  this  argument  will  appear 
if  we  suppose  that  the  author  had  called  them  by  the 
Greek  names  Philip  and  Alexander,  or  Antiochus  and 
Seleucus.  Is  there,  then,  not  the  same  cogency  in  the 
use  of  Persian  names  for  two  men  of  supposedly 
Median  race? 

No.  There  is  not.  Because  the  Medes  and  the 
Persians  were  closely  allied  in  race  and  language.  Da- 
rius Hystaspis  asserts  that  he,  a  Persian,  was  of  Aryan 
race;  and  Herodotus  says,  that  the  Medes  were  Arians.  ^ 
Besides,  the  same  proper  names  are  found  in  use  among 
both  Medes  and  Persians.  Thus,  Harpagus,  a  Mede, 
led  the  revolt  of  the  army  of  the  Medes  which  went 
over  to  Cyrus;*  and  Harpagus,  a  Persian  general  of  a 
considerable  army,  is  said  to  have  taken  Histiasus  the 
Milesian  prisoner.  ^  The  Gobryas  of  Xenophon,  whose 
name  is  the  Greek  form  of  Ugbaru  the  governor  of 
Gutium  of  Cyrus,  was  most  probably  a  Mede;  whereas 
the  Gobryas  who  was  one  of  the  seven  conspirators 
against  Smerdis,  the  Magian,  was  a  Persian,  as  was 
also  a  Gobryas,  the  son  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  Artem- 
bares,  whose  son  was  a  playmate  of  Cyrus,  was  a  Mede;* 
whereas,  the  Artembares  mentioned  later  was  a  Persian.  ^ 
Vindafra  was  a  Mede  who  commanded  the  army  which 
Darius  Hystaspis  sent  against  Babylon  when  it  revolted 

^  \'TI,  62.  *  Herodotus;  Bk.  T,  80,  and  after. 

3  Id.,  Bk.  VI,  28.  4  Herodotus,  I,  114.  sBook  IX,  122. 


232  The  Book  of  Daniel 

from  him  the  second  time;^  Vindafrana  was  a  Persian 
and  one  of  the  seven  conspirators  against  Smerdis.  ^ 
Citran-takhma,  who  claimed  to  be  of  the  family  of 
Uvakhshatara  (i.  e.,  Cyaxares,  the  Median),  revolted  in 
Sagartia,  and  Darius  Hystaspis  sent  against  him 
Takhma-spada,  a  Median;  whereas  Tritan-taikmes 
(part  of  whose  name  is  the  same  as  Takhma-spada  and 
part  of  each  perhaps  the  same  as  the  latter  part  of  Ci- 
tran-takhma) is  called  by  Herodotus  a  son  of  Artabanus 
who  was  a  brother  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  Further  evi- 
dence that  the  Persian  and  Median  languages  were 
closely  allied  may  be  found  in  Rawlinson  and  others, 
though  it  is  generally  admitted  that  they  had  many 
dialectical  differences.  There  is  no  reason,  however, 
why  the  names  Xerxes  and  Darius  may  not  have  been 
borne  as  proper  names  in  the  time  of  Cyrus;  and  by 
Medes. 

Before  leaving  this  subject,  we  might  turn  the  ques- 
tion about  and  ask,  whether  there  be  any  probable 
reason  why  the  two  Persian  kings  were  called  Darius 
and  Xerxes.  Could  these  names,  possibly,  have  had 
any  connection  with  the  Xerxes  and  Darius  of  Daniel, 
arising  from  a  possible  relationship  of  blood  between 
them?  Now,  we  are  perfectly  aware,  that  in  what 
follows  we  are  treading  on  dangerous  ground.  But  we 
feel  that  we  are  in  good  company;  and  hope  that  Prof. 
Sayce  and  Winckler,  and  the  shades  of  a  host  of  others, 
will  pardon  us,  if  we  thrust  ourselves  forward  for  a 
little  along  the  line  which  they  have  followed  with  so 
much  brilliancy.  Returning,  however,  to  our  subject, 
let  it  be  said,  that  it  has  struck  us  with  much  force, 
that  the  claimants  of  the  throne  of  Media  and  Sagartia, 
who  rebelled  against  Darius  Hystaspis,  both  assert  that 

"^  Behistun  Inscr.  ii,  83-87.  »  Id,,  iv,  83. 


.  Darius  not  a  Reflection  233 

they  were  of  the  family  of  Cyaxares,  not  of  that  of 
Astyages ;  whereas  the  claimants  to  the  throne  of  Baby- 
lon assert  that  they  were  the  sons  of  Nabunaid.  Why 
did  the  former  claimants  not  assert  their  right  to 
succeed  Astyages,  who,  according  to  Herodotus,  had 
been  the  last  preceding  king  of  Media,  just  as  these 
latter  claimed  to  succeed  Nabunaid  the  last  de  jure 
king  of  Babylon?  Most  probably  because,  as  Profs. 
Sayce  and  Winckler  have  shown  and  the  inscriptions 
of  Nabunaid  and  Cyrus  certainly  seem  to  imply,  Asty- 
ages was  not  a  Median  king  at  all;  but  the  king  of  the 
Manda,  or  Scythians.  If  we  take  Astyages  to  have 
been  a  Scythian,  one  of  a  race  that  had  conquered  and 
held  in  subjection  the  kindred  peoples  of  the  Sagartians, 
Medes,  and  Persians,  we  shall  account  reasonably  for 
many  facts  that  are  otherwise  hard  to  understand. 
Astyages,  the  Mandean,  marries  his  daughter  Man- 
dane  (the  Mandean  ?)  to  Cambyses  the  king  of  Anshan, 
but  seeks  to  slay  their  son  Cyrus,  whom  he  looked  upon 
as  a  dangerous  possible  rival;  doubtless,  because  Cyrus 
the  Achasmenid  of  royal  line  was  the  legitimate  head  of 
the  subject  peoples,  or  at  least,  of  the  Persian  branch 
of  them.  Harpagus,  the  Mede,  along  with  another 
Mede  named  JMitradates,  saves  Cyrus.  For  this  rea- 
son Harpagus  is  served  with  soup  made  from  his  own 
son  by  order  of  Astyages.  Harpagus  enrolls  the 
Medes  in  a  conspiracy  against  his  master  and  calls 
in  Cyrus  the  Persian  to  lead  the  revolt.  During 
the  classic  battle,  Harpagus,  with  the  Medes  under 
him,  goes  over  to  Cyrus,  and  Astyages  is  captured 
and  dethroned.  Cyrus,  then,  succeeds  to  the  throne  of 
Media  and  is  royally  served  all  through  his  reign,  and 
his  son  Cambyses  during  his  reign,  by  the  Medes,  who 
had   joined   with   the   Persians   in   overthrowing   the 


234  The  Book  of  Daniel 

power  of  the  Mandeans.  The  Mandeans  had  con- 
quered a  large  part  of  the  old  Assyrian  empire  and 
when  Cyrus  overthrew  Astyages,  Nabunaid  of  Babylon 
recaptured  a  large  part  of  the  region  about  the  Eu- 
phrates and  Tigris,  including,  perhaps,  the  country  of 
Gobryas,  the  governor  or  king  of  Gutium,  who,  judging 
from  his  name,  was  probably  a  Mede.  Gobryas  calls 
in  Cyrus  to  his  aid,  and  the  united  armies  conquer 
Babylon;  whereupon,  Cyrus  appoints  Gobryas  governor 
of  Babylon  and  successor  to  Belshazzar,  the  king  of  the 
Chaldeans.  Gobryas  assumes  the  name  of  Darius  as 
his  regnal  name,  and  rules  under  Cyrus  over  as  much 
of  his  empire  as  was  once  under  the  Babylonian  or 
Assyrian  kings.  Cyrus,  however,  upheld  his  position 
as  overlord,  and  Cambyses,  his  son,  grasped  the  hand  of 
Bel  of  Babylon,  as  the  legitimate  successor  of  his 
father,  Darius-Gobryas  being  under  Cyrus,  and  proba- 
bly under  Cambyses,  the  sub-king.  Contracts,  hovv^- 
ever,  are  dated  only  with  the  name  of  the  overlord,  as 
they  were  subsequently  when  Zopyrus  was  governor  of 
Babylonia  under  Darius  and  Megapanus  under  Xerxes. 
This  Gobryas  of  Gutium  had  a  daughter  who  was 
given  in  marriage  to  Hystaspis,  one  of  Cyrus'  Persian 
generals,  the  father  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  the  gover- 
nor, under  Cambyses  and  Smerdis  the  Magian,  over  tlie 
country  of  Persia.  Darius  the  Persian  would  thus  be 
named  after  his  maternal  grandfather's  regnal  name. 
Then  Darius  the  Persian  marries  a  daughter  of  Cyrus, 
whose  oldest  son,  born  after  Darius  became  king,  he 
calls  Xerxes,  the  name  which  according  to  Dan.  ix,  i, 
had  been  borne  by  his  great-grandfather.  There  thus 
unite  in  Xerxes  all  the  royal  families  which  might  have 
laid  claim  to  the  throne.  Through  Mandane,  the 
mother  of  Cyrus,  by  way  of  Cyrus  and  his  daughter 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  235 

Atossa,  Xerxes  succeeds  to  the  right  of  Astyages  the 
Mandean.  Through  his  grandmother,  the  wife  of 
Hystaspis  and  mother  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  he  succeeds 
to  the  right  of  Darius  Gobryas,  the  Mede,  the  son  of 
Xerxes  the  Mede.  Through  his  father  Darius,  the  son 
of  Hystaspis,  the  son  of  Arsames,  the  Achasmenid, 
he  succeeds  to  the  right  of  Cyrus  and  Cambyses  the 
Achaemenids,  his  cousins  of  the  royal  Hne  of  Persia  and 
Anshan.  Through  Darius  the  Mede  he  probably 
succeeded  not  merely  to  the  throne  of  Gutium,  but  to 
that  of  all  the  Median  kingdom  as  well.  For,  let  it  be 
noticed,  that  the  Xerxes  of  Dan.  ix,  i,  is  possibly  the 
same  as  Cyaxares.  At  any  rate,  the  Medo-Persian 
root  khsha  is  found  in  both;  and  it  is  possible,  at  least, 
that  Xerxes  and  Cyaxares  are  the  Median  and  Persian 
forms  of  the  same  name.  *  If,  then,  Darius-Gobryas  the 
Mede  were  the  son  of  Xerxes-Cyaxares  the  last  king  of 
Media  before  Astyages  the  Mandean  conquered  it,  he 
would  be  the  legal  successor  to  Cyaxares,  and  Xerxes 
the  son  of  Darius  Hystaspis  would  succeed  to  the  Me- 
dian right  through  him,  as  his  father  Darius  Hystaspis 
had  done  before  him.  The  importance  of  securing  the 
right  to  the  succession  is  obvious,  when  we  remember, 
that  Citrantakhma  who  revolted  against  Darius  Hystas- 
pis in  Sagartia,  and  Parumartish  who  revolted  against 
him  in  Media,  both  based  their  claim  to  the  throne 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  of  the  family  of  Cyaxares. 
If  we  accept  such  a  genealogy  for  Darius  Hystaspis, 
it  will  account  for  the  fact  that  he  and  Xerxes  are 
called  Medes  as  well  as  Persians  by  the  Greeks,  although 
Cyrus  and  Cambyses  are  not  so  called;  and  that  Xerxes 
is  called  king  of  Persia  and  of  the  Medes  in  the  sub- 

»  Compare  Tobit  xiv,  15,  where  Cyaxares  Js  called  Assuerus,  that  is, 
Xerxes. 


236  The  Book  of  Daniel 

scriptions  of  several  Bab^^lonian  tablets.^  It  will 
account,  also,  for  the  loyalty  of  the  Medes  to  the 
Persian  kings,  for  the  appointment  of  two  of  them, 
Vindafra  and  Takhmaspada,  to  put  down  the  great 
revolts  in  Babylon  and  Media  under  Darius  Hystaspis; 
for  the  appointment  of  a  Mede,  Datis,  to  command 
the  expedition  against  Athens,  which  culminated  at 
Marathon;  and  for  the  putting  of  the  Medes  in  a  peculiar 
position  next  to  the  Persians  both  by  the  classical 
writers,  by  Darius  in  the  Behistun  Inscription,  and  by 
the  Babylonians  in  the  subscriptions  to  the  tablets 
from  the  age  of  Xerxes. 

This  rather  lengthy  excursus  will,  we  hope,  make  it 
clear  to  all  why  we  believe  that  the  statements  of  the 
author  of  Daniel  with  reference  to  **  Darius,  the  Mede, 
the  son  of  Xerxes,  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes, "  are  con- 
sistent with  what  is  known  of  the  history  of  the  times 
which  center  about  Cyrus  the  Persian,  and  the  fall  of 
Babylon.  We  believe,  that  it  is  entirely  possible  to 
harmonize  every  statement  of  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Daniel  with  any  facts  that  have  been  ascertained  from 
the  monuments  of  Persia  and  Babylon,  or  from  any 
other  reliable  sources  whatsoever.  It  is  wrong  and 
unfair  to  call  any  man  a  knave  or  a  fool,  a  liar  or  an 
ignoramus,  unless  we  have  certain  and  sufncient  proofs 
to  substantiate  our  assertion.  It  is  wrong  to  assert 
that  the  author  of  Daniel  attempted  to  reflect  back- 
ward the  life  and  acts  and  character  of  Darius  Hystas- 
pis upon  a  fictitious  and  supposititious  Darius,  unless 
we  can  prove  it.  It  is  wrong  to  say  that  having  at- 
tempted it,  he  confused  the  persons  thus  reflected,  so 
as  to  confound  the  relationship  existing  between  them. 

'7.  e.j  in  VASD,  v,  118,  119;  iv,  193,  194;  Strassmaler,  in  Acts  cf  Slh 
Congress  of  Orientalists,  Nos.  19,  20. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  237 

And,  finally,  while  one  cotild  well  be  pardoned  for  doubt- 
ing whether  all  of  these  statements  were  written  without 
unintentional  errors,  or  have  been  transmitted  without 
corruption  of  text;  yet,  in  view  of  the  evidence,  we 
think  it  is  manifestly  unfair,  to  accuse  the  author  of 
them  either  with  lack  of  intelligence,  knowledge,  candor, 
or  consistency,  or  with  confusions,  reflections,  inaccura- 
cies, and  exaggerations. 


CHAPTER  XII 

DARIUS  THE  MEDE  NOT  A  REFLECTION  {Continued) 

Secondly,  the  author  of  the  book  of  Daniel  cannot 
have  reflected  backward  the  age  of  Darius  Hystaspis 
at  the  time  when  he  became  king  of  Persia.  ^  In  Dan. 
V,  31,  it  is  said,  that  Darius  the  Mede  received  the 
kingdom  when  he  was  about  62  years  of  age.  Herodotus 
states  that  Darius  was  only  "about  20  years  of  age'* 
when  Cyrus  just  before  his  death  had  passed  the 
Araxes  on  his  fatal  expedition  against  the  Alassagetae; 
and  that  Darius  **had  been  left  in  Persia,  because  he 
had  not  yet  attained  the  age  of  military  service."^ 
He  further  says,  ^  that  Hystaspis,  the  father  of  Darius, 
was  governor  (hyparchos)  of  Persia,  at  the  time  when 
Darius  arrived  at  Susa  when  Otanes  and  Gobryas, 
*'the  noblest  of  the  Persians,"  were  preparing  their 
conspiracy  against  the  false  Smerdis.  As  the  fabe 
Smerdis  was  killed  in  521  B.C.,  this  would  make  Darius 
to  have  been  79  years  of  age  at  the  death  of  Smerdis 
and  his  father  about  100  if  the  former  had  been  62  at  the 
time  of  the  death  of  Cyrus. 

Further,  Darius  in  his  Behistun  Inscription  ^  speaks 
of  his  father  Hystaspis  as  being  still  in  active  service  as 
general  of  his  forces  in  the  war  against  the  rebellious 
Parthians  and  Hyrcanians.     His  words  are  as  follows: 

'  See  p.  223.  2  Bk.  I,  209.  3  Bk.  Ill,  70. 

4  Ccl.  ii,  92-CoL  iii,  10. 

238 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  2^9 

Thus  speaks  king  Darius:  Parthia  and  Hyrcania  rebelled 
and  went  over  to  Fravartish.  Hystaspis,  my  father,  was  in 
Parthia;  the  people  left  him  and  rose  in  insurrection.  Then 
Hystaspis  took  the  people  who  stood  by  him  and  drew  out. 
There  is  a  city  in  Parthia  called  Vispauzatish ;  where  a 
battle  with  the  rebels  took  place.  Auramazda  helped  me. 
Through  the  grace  of  Auramazda,  Hystaspis  smote  the  rebels 
hard.  On  the  twenty-second  day  of  the  month  Viyakhna 
the  battle  was  fought.  Then  I  sent  a  Persian  army  to 
Hystaspis  from  Raga.  When  this  army  came  to  Hystaspis, 
he  dx-ew  out  with  this  army  and  fought  a  battle  with  the 
rebels  at  a  city  of  Parthia  called  Patigrabana.  Auramazda 
helped.  Through  his  grace,  Hystaspis  smote  the  rebel 
host.  On  the  first  day  of  the  month  Garmapada,  the 
battle  was  fought;  whereupon  the  province  became  mine. 
This  is  what  I  did  in  Parthia. 

It  is  obvious  that  a  man  who  must  have  been  at  least 
about  80  years  of  age,  if  his  son  were  62  and  more,  could 
not  have  carried  on  in  person  such  an  arduous  campaign. 

Finally,  it  is  scarcely  within  the  range  of  probability 
that  Darius  Hystaspis  himself  could  have  conducted  so 
many  expeditions  as  both  his  own  inscriptions  and  the 
records  of  the  classical  writers  impute  to  him,  if  he  had 
been  62  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  Belshazzar 
in  538  B.C.  or  at  that  of  his  succession  to  the  throne 
of  Cyrus  in  521  B.C.  If  he  had  been  62  years  old  in 
538  B.C.,  he  would  have  been  1 14  at  the  time  of  his  death 
in  486  B.C. ;  if  he  were  62  at  the  death  of  Smerdis  in  521 
B.C.,  he  must  have  been  97  at  the  time  of  his  death.  It 
is  not  probable,  that  the  Greek  historians  would  not 
have  noted  this  extreme  old  age  in  one  so  well  known  as 
he,  and  especially  in  one  so  active  as  he  was  even  up  to 
the  time  of  his  decease.  So  that  we  think  that  we  are 
justified  in  concluding  that  whatever  may  have  been 


240  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  source  or  the  object  or  the  date  of  the  writer  of 
Daniel,  he  could  not  have  meant  to  reflect  to  his  Darius 
the  age  of  Darius  Hystaspis  at  the  time  of  his  accession. 

Thirdly,  the  same  may  be  said  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  two  Dariuses  are  said  to  have  become  king. ' 
Herodotus,  who  shortly  after  the  death  of  Darius 
Hystaspis  was  born  at  Halicarnassus  in  Asia  Minor,  a 
city  subject  at  that  time  to  the  Persians,  and  who  had 
traveled  extensively  in  the  Persian  empire  and  studied 
the  stories  of  its  origin,  has  given  us  the  longest,  most 
thorough,  and  probably  the  most  reliable  account  of  the 
life  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  In  his  relation  of  the  acces- 
sion of  Darius  to  the  throne  of  Persia,  he  is  explicit  in 
stating  how  he  succeeded  the  false  Smerdis,  the  Magian; 
and  by  what  a  marvelous  series  of  events,  he  and  his 
fellow  conspirators  among  the  nobility  of  Persia, 
whose  names  also  he  gives,  succeeded  in  wresting  the 
domination  of  Western  Asia  from  the  usurping  power 
of  the  Medes  and  the  Magi.  ^ 

Not  one  word  is  said  about  Belshazzar,  or  about  any 
other  Babylonian  or  Chaldean  king  in  all  of  this  long 
account.  Moreover,  the  Darius  of  Herodotus  was  the 
Persian  leader  of  the  Persians  against  the  Magian  leader 
of  the  Medes,  and  not  a  Median  ruler  succeeding  to  a 
Chaldean  king. 

These  statements  of  Herodotus  are  confirmed  as  to 
these  points  by  the  inscriptions  of  Darius.  The  Behis- 
tun  Inscription  tells  at  length  how  the  false  Smerdis, 
having  rebelled  against  Cambyses,  assumed  and  main- 
tained the  kingship.     On  Col.  i,  lines  38-72,  he  says: 

When  Cambyses  had  gone  to  Egypt,  the  army  became 
hostile  and  lying  increased  in  the  country,  both  in  Persia 

'  See  p.  223.  •  See  his  History,  Book  III,  61-88. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  241 

and  Media  and  the  other  countries.  Then  a  man,  a  Mag- 
ian,  of  Paishiyauvada  called  Gaumata  rebelled  at  a  fortress 
called  Arakadrish.  In  the  month  Viyakhna,  on  the  14th 
day  of  the  month,  he  rebelled.  He  lied  to  the  people  and 
said:  "I  am  Bardiya,  the  son  of  Cyrus  and  brother  of 
Cambyses. '*  Therefore,  the  whole  kingdom  broke  into 
rebellion,  going  over  to  him  from  Cambyses,  both  Persia 
and  Media  as  well  as  the  other  lands.  He  seized  the  govern- 
ment. On  the  9th  day  of  the  month  Garmapada  he  seized 
the  government.  Then  Cambyses  died  by  suicide.  This 
government  which  Gaumata  seized, — this  government  has 
been  from  of  old  in  our  family.  Then  Gaumata  the  Magian 
took  from  Cambyses  both  Persia  and  Media  and  the  other 
countries.  He  acted  as  he  pleased.  He  was  king.  No 
one,  neither  Persian  nor  Mede,  nor  any  one  of  our  family 
would  have  snatched  the  kingdom  from  Gaimiata  the 
Magian.  The  people  feared  him  on  account  of  his  cruelty. 
He  would  have  killed  many  people  who  had  known  Bardiya; 
he  would  have  killed  them,  "so  that  no  one  should  know, 
that  I  am  not  Bardiya  the  son  of  Cyrus. "  No  one  dared 
to  speak  about  Gaumata  the  Magian,  until  I  came.  Then 
I  cried  to  Auramazda  for  help.  Aturamazda  granted  me  aid. 
In  the  month  Bagayadish,  in  the  tenth  day,  I  and  a  few  men 
killed  that  Gaumata  the  Magian  and  those  who  were  his 
noblest  adherents.  At  a  fortress  called  Sikayauvatish 
in  the  district  of  Media  called  Nisaya;  there  I  killed  him 
and  took  the  kingdom  away  from  him.  Through  the  grace 
of  Auramazda,  I  became  king.  Auramazda  gave  over  to 
me  the  kingdom.  The  government  which  had  been  wrested 
from  our  family,  I  reestablished  as  it  had  been  before.  The 
places  of  prayer  which  Gaumata  the  Magian  had  destroyed 
I  preserved  to  the  people.  The  pastures,  the  hearths,  the 
dwellings  of  the  clans  which  Gaumata  the  Magian  had 
taken  away,  I  restored.  I  restored  all  things  as  they  had 
been  before.  Through  the  grace  of  Auramazda,  have  I  done 
this.  I  have  worked  until  I  have  placed  our  clan  again  in 
its  place,  as  it  was  before.     I  have  worked  through  the 

z6 


242  The  Book  of  Daniel 

grace  of  Auramazda,  so  that  it  was  as  it  was  before  Gaumata 
the  Magian  had  robbed  our  clan.  This  is  what  I  did  when 
I  became  king. 

Another  point  at  which  Herodotus'  account  of  the 
conspiracy  against  the  false  Smerdis  is  confirmed  by 
the  inscriptions  is  in  the  list  of  the  names  of  the  con- 
spirators. According  to  Herodotus  III,  70,  there  were 
six  of  these,  to  wit:  Otanes,  Aspathines,  Gobryas, 
Intaphernes,  Megabysus,  and  Hydarnes.  The  names 
of  five  of  these  are  given  by  Darius  on  Col.  iv,  80-86, ' 
of  the  Behistun  Inscription,  where  we  read: 

Thus  saith  Darius  the  king:  These  are  the  men  who 
were  present  when  I  slew  Gaumata  the  Magian,  who 
called  himself  Bardiya.  At  that  time  these  men  helped  me 
as  my  adherents:  Vindafrana,  the  son  of  Vayaspara,  a  Per- 
sian; Utana,  the  son  of  Thukhra,  a  Persian;  Gaubaruva,  the 
son  of  Marduniya,  a  Persian;  Vidarna,  the  son  of  Bagabigna, 
a  Persian;  Bagabukhsha,  the  son  of  Daduhya,  a  Persian; 
Ardtmianish,  the  son  of  Vahauka,  a  Persian. 

It  will  be  seen  that  all  but  the  second  of  the 
names  as  given  by  Herodotus  are  easily  recogniz- 
able in  the  list  given  in  the  inscription,  and  that  there 
is  but  a  slight  difference  in  the  order  of  the  names;  and 
the  spelling  in  one  case  is  Greek  and  in  the  other 
Persian.  As  to  Aspathines,  however,  we  find  his  name 
given  by  Darius  on  the  Naksh-i-Rustam  inscription 
as  that  of  one  of  the  companions  of  the  king;  so  that 
it  is  possible,  that  he  had  two  names,  Aspathines  and 
Ardumanish  (Artabanus). 

From  the  explicitness,  then,  of  the  accounts  of  the 
manner  of  the  accession  of  Darius  Hystaspis  to  the 
throne  of  Persia,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  a  late 

'  Weissbach,  Die  Achdmeniden  Inschriften,  §68. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  243 

writer  who  wished  to  reflect  backwards  the  history 
of  his  succession  to  the  kingdom  could  have  said  in  the 
language  of  the  book  of  Daniel:  **That  same  night 
was  Belshazzar  the  Chaldean  slain;  and  Darius 
the  Median  received  (or  took)  the  kingdom"  (v.  30, 
31),  or,  as  it  is  said  in  ix,  I,  ** Darius  the  son  of  Ahasu- 
erus  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes  which  had  been  made 
king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans.  ** 

Fourthly,  the  author  of  Daniel  does  not  reflect 
backward  the  name  of  the  kingdom  over  which  Darius 
Hystaspis  had  been  made  king.'  In  his  own  inscrip- 
tions, Darius  Hystaspis  calls  himself  "king  of  Persia*';* 
**king  of  lands"  ;^  **king  of  the  lands  of  many  tongues"  ;^ 
**king  of  the  lands  of  all  tongues"  ;s  "king  of  the  great 
wide  earth";**  and  "king  of  numerous  countries. "^ 
On  the  Babylonian  tablets,  he  is  uniformly  called  "king 
of  lands,"  "king  of  Babylon,"  or  "king  of  Babylon 
and  of  the  lands."*  So,  likewise,  Herodotus  and  the 
classical  writers  uniformly  call  him  king  of  Persia.' 
Never  once  anjrwhere  is  he  called  "king  of  the  Medes, " 
"king  of  Babylon,"  or  "king  of  the  Chaldeans."  In 
glaring  contrast  with  this,  the  Darius  of  Daniel  is  called 
a  Mede,'<*  which  may  possibly  mean  that  he  was  a  Me- 
dian by  race,  or  a  king  of  the  Medes,  or  at  least  of  a 
part  of  the  Medes;  also,  "king  over  the  realm  of  the 
Chaldeans";"  and  by  implication,  at  least,  king  of 

»  See  p.  223.  *  Behistun  i,  2,  A  2. 

» Id,  I,  2,  A  3;  Persepolis  inscr.  i,  3,  *  Elwend,  14-16;  Suez,  b,  5. 

5  NR,  a  10.  «  NR,  a  11-12.  t  Persepolis,  i,  3-4. 

'  So  on  all  those  published  by  Strassmaier  and  in  all  in  the  "Cunei- 
form Texts"  and  in  the  Vorderasiatische  Schriftdenkmdler. 

»  See  the  author's  articles  on  the  Titles  of  the  Kings  in  the  Prince- 
ton Theological  Review  for  1904-5,  and  his  article  on  the  Titles  of  the 
Kings  of  Persia  in  the  Festschrift  Eduard  Sacliau,  1915. 

«•  Dan.  V,  31.  "  Dan.  ix,  i. 


244  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Babylon,  since  he  received  apparently  the  kingdom 
of  Belshazzar,'  and  Belshazzar  is  called  "king  of  Baby- 
lon. '*'  When  we  remember,  that  the  author  of  Daniel 
is  careful  to  distinguish  Nebuchadnezzar  as  "king  of 
Babylon" ;3  Cyrus,  as  "the  Persian, **4  or  as  "king  of 
Persia" ;^  and  Belshazzar  as  "the  Chaldean,  "^  or  as  the 
"king  of  Babylon"; 7  the  fact,  that  Darius  is  called  "the 
Mede,"*  or  king  "over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans,"' 
is  especially  worthy  of  notice.  Particularly,  is  this 
careful  discrimination  of  titles  to  be  noted  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  a  "Darius  king  of  Persia"  is  mentioned  by 
Ezra"  and  a  " Darius  the  Persian"  in  Nehemiah  xii, 
22;  one  of  which  is  most  probably  Darius  Hystaspis. 
Accordingly,  the  author  of  Daniel  cannot  have  gotten 
his  knowledge  of  a  Darius  the  Mede  from  the  Scriptures. 
That  is,  since  the  Scriptures  outside  of  Daniel  speak 
only  of  a  Darius  the  Persian,  or  a  Darius,  king  of  Persia, 
the  author  of  Daniel  did  not  reflect  him  back  into  his 
Darius  the  Mede,  whom  he  never  calls  a  Persian  nor  a 
king  of  Persia.  So  that  here  again  we  find  that  there  is 
no  evidence  either  on  the  monuments,  or  in  the  clas- 
sical writers,  or  in  the  Scriptures,  that  Darius  the  Mede 
was  a  reflection  of  Darius  Hystaspis. 

Fifthly,  nor  does  the  Darius  of  Daniel  reflect  the 
relations  of  Darius  Hystaspis  to  other  kings,  ^^ 

According  to  the  Behistun  inscription,  Darius  Hystas- 
pis conquered  two  men  who  had  rebelled  against  him 
and  usurped  the  throne  of  Babylon.    Each  of  these 


«^Dan.  V,  31,  vi,  i. 

»  Dan.  vii,  i,  where  Theodotion,  however,  reads  "king  of  the  Chal- 
deans."        3  See  i,  I.  4  VI,  29.  s  X,  i.  <  y^  30. 

7  vii,  I,  where,  as  we  have  before  mentioned,  Theodotion  reads 
"king  of  the  Chaldeans. "  « VI,  i.  » IX,  i. 

"  IV,  5,  24,  vi,  14  (?).  "  See  p.  223. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  245 

called  himself  Nebuchadnezzar  and  claimed  to  be  a  son 
of  Nabimaid.  The  first  of  these  is  called  by  Darius 
*  *  Nadintu-Bel  the  son  of  Aniri, " '  and  the  second  *  *  Ara- 
kha,  the  son  of  Haldita  an  Armenian.  "*  To  show  that 
the  author  of  Daniel  in  his  account  of  the  overthrow  of 
Belshazzar  the  Chaldean  cannot  have  reflected  back- 
ward the  conquest  of  either  of  these  rebel  kings  by  Da- 
rius Hystaspis,  I  shall  insert  here  at  length  the  accounts 
of  the  rebellions  of  these  men,  as  they  appear  in  the 
Persian  recension  of  the  Behistun  Inscription  in  the 
words  of  Darius  Hystaspis  himself. 

After  the  death  of  Gaumata  the  Magian,  Susiana  revolted 
and  a  man  named  Atrina,  the  son  of  Upadarma,  set  himself 
up  as  king.  At  the  same  time,  a  Babylonian  called  Nadi- 
tabaira^  the  son  of  Aniri,  rebelled  in  Babylon  and  deceived 
the  people,  saying:  "I  am  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  son  of 
Nabunita."  The  whole  Babylonian  people  went  over  to  this 
Naditabaira.  Babylon  was  rebellious  and  he  seized  the 
government  in  Babylon.  Darius,  therefore,  sent  an  army 
against  Susiana  while  he  himself  advanced  against  Nadita- 
baira whose  army  held  the  (fords  of  the)  Tigris,  there 
awaiting  his  attack  on  ships.  Through  the  grace  of  Aura- 
mazda,  Darius  passed  the  Tigris  and  defeated  the  army 
of  Naditabaira  on  the  27th  of  the  month  Atriyadiya.  Then 
he  advanced  to  Babylon,  fighting  on  the  way  a  battle  at 
Zazana  on  the  Euphrates,  driving  a  portion  of  the  Babylon- 
ian army  into  the  river  which  carried  it  away.  This  battle 
was  on  the  2nd  day  of  the  month  Anamaka.  Naditabaira 
escaped  with  a  few  horsemen  to  Babylon,  whither  Darius 
followed  him,  seized  Babylon;  and  captured  and  killed 
Naditabaira  in  Babylon. 

Sometime  after,  while  Darius  was  in  Persia  and 
Media,'*    **the    Babylonians   rebelled   a   second   time 

»  Beh.  Insc.  §  16.  'Id.,  §  49.  »  i.  e.,  Nadintu-Bel. 

*  Beh.  Insc.  §  49. 


246  The  Book  of  Daniel 

under  the  leadership  of  Arakha  an  Armenian,  son  of. 
Haldita,  whose  headquarters  were  in  the  district  of 
Dubala."    He  deceived  the  people,  saying: 

"I  am  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  son  of  Nabunita."  The 
Babylonian  army  (or  people)  rebelled  and  went  over  to  him 
and  he  took,  and  became  king  in,  Babylon.  Therefore, 
Darius  sent  an  army  against  Babylon,  under  the  command 
of  Vindapama,  a  Mede,  his  servant  whom  he  had  made  gen- 
eral. Through  the  grace  of  Auramazda,  he  captured  Baby- 
lon on  the  2nd  day  of  the  month  Markazana.  "This" 
says  Darius,  "is  what  I  did  in  Babylon." 

Herodotus,  also,  describes  at  length'  a  capture  of 
Babylon  by  Darius  in  addition  to  the  first  which  had 
been  made  by  Cyrus.  ^  It  is  most  probable  that  the 
first  revolt  under  Nadintu-Bel  is  the  one  meant  by 
Herodotus  inasmuch  as  he  makes  Darius  to  have  com- 
manded in  person;  and  according  to  the  Behistun 
Inscription,  this  was  done  only  in  the  first  revolt;  but 
he  seems  to  have  confused  in  a  measure  the  two  revolts, 
since  he  says,  that  Darius  started  on  his  expedition 
against  the  Scythians  "after  the  capture  of  Babylon,  "^ 
and  the  inscription  would  indicate  that  this  Scythian 
expedition  did  not  take  place  till  after  the  second  revolt. 
Herodotus  does  not  mention  any  name  for  the  leader 
of  the  rebellious  Babylonians.  He  does  state,  how- 
ever, that  the  city  was  captured  through  the  ingenuity 
of  Zopyrus,  a  son  of  Megabysus,  one  of  the  seven  noble 
Persians  who  had  conspired  against  the  Magian;  and 
that  as  a  reward  Darius  gave  Zopyrus  the  government 
of  Babylon ' '  fi*ee  from  taxes  during  his  life,  '*  and  that  he 
*' every  year  presented  him  with  those  gifts  which  are 

«  Book  III,  150-159.  *  Id.,  Book  I,  188-192. 

3  Id,,  Book  IV,  I. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  247 

most  prized  by  the  Persians,"  **and  many  other  things 
in  addition.  '* 

In  the  Old  Testament  outside  of  Daniel,  the  only 
mention  of  a  Darius  along  with  and  in  relation  to  any 
other  king  is  in  Ezra  vi,  14,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
temple  was  built  at  the  command  of  the  God  of  Israel 
and  at  the  command  of  Cyrus,  Darius,  and  Artaxerxes, 
kings  of  Persia. 

In  the  book  of  Daniel,  however,  Darius  the  Mede  is 
said  to  have  succeeded  Belshazzar  as  king  of  Babylon 
and  as  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans;^  and 
to  have  reigned  before,  or  contemporaneously  with, 
Cyrus  king  of  Persia.^  So  that  we  can  safely  affirm 
with  assurance  that,  as  to  his  relations  to  other  kings, 
the  Darius  of  Daniel  was  not  a  reflection  of  Darius 
Hystaspis. 

Sixthly,  the  same  is  true,  also,  with  reference  to  their 
methods  of  government.  ^  As  we  have  shown  above,  the 
satrapial  system  had  been  in  use  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Sargon,  and  it  was  employed  by  every  king  between 
Sargon  and  Darius  Hystaspis,  and  by  every  king  of 
Persia  after  Darius  Hystaspis.  Nor  was  it  sub- 
stantially modified,  so  far  as  we  know,  by  Alexander  or 
by  the  Greek  Seleucid  rulers;  and  in  fact,  it  has  con- 
tinued in  use  in  that  part  of  the  world  through  all 
changes  of  government,  Persian,  Seleucid,  Parthian, 
Sassanid,  Arab,  and  Turk,  down  to  the  present  time. 
It  is  the  method  of  absolute,  autocratic  monarchies, 
and  always  has  been,  and  always  will  be.  There  may 
be  differences  of  names  and  modifications  in  minor 
particulars  of  administration;  but  the  system  itself 
from  its  very  nature  will  always  remain  unchanged  in 
its  essential  features.     As  to  the  number,  character,  and 

'  V,  30,  31.  ix,  I.  *  VI,  29.  3  See  p.  223. 


248  The  Book  of  Daniel 

authority  of  the  satraps  said  to  have  been  appointed 
by  Darius  the  Mede,  there  is,  however,  no  evidence  of  a 
reflection  from  Darius  Hystaspis.  Nor  is  it  otherwise 
with  regard  to  the  three  presidents  appointed  by  the 
Darius  of  Daniel  and  as  to  the  governors  and  deputies 
and  other  officials,  who  are  said  to  have  taken  part  in 
the  administration  of  his  kingdom.  The  inscriptions 
of  Darius  Hystaspis,  as  we  have  seen  above,  mention 
satraps  and  generals  alone;  and  Herodotus  speaks  of 
archons,  hyparchons,  monarchs,  and  epitropoi,  beside 
generals  and  admirals  with  their  subordinates.  From 
any  source  of  information  that  we  possess  with  regard 
to  the  administration  and  names  of  officials  of  Darius 
Hystaspis,  it  is  utterly  impossible  for  anyone  to  con- 
struct the  system  of  government  or  the  names  of 
officials,  recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Daniel.  The 
system  of  government  of  Darius  the  Mede,  and  the 
names  of  the  officials,  half  Persian,  half  Babylonian, 
accord  excellently  with  a  period  of  transition  from 
Babylonian  to  Persian  rule.  But  in  the  points  wherein 
the  government  of  Darius  the  Mede  corresponds  with 
that  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  it  corresponds,  also,  with  any 
other  satrapial  system;  and  in  the  points  where  it 
disagrees,  it  cannot  be  a  reflection  of  the  latter.  And 
if  anyone  should  say,  that  these  disagreements  exist 
merely  because  of  our  lack  of  complete  information  as 
to  the  particulars  of  the  system  introduced,  or  organized, 
by  Darius  Hystaspis,  we  answer:  When  the  evidence  is 
forthcoming,  we  shall  yield  the  point.  But  until  evi- 
dence be  produced,  let  it  be  observed,  that  here  also 
there  is  no  reflection  of  Darius  Hystaspis  to  be  found  in 
the  Darius  of  Daniel. 

Nor  is  it  different  with  regard  to  the  laws  and  the 
decrees  of  the  Darius  of  Daniel.     To  be  sure,  Darius 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  249 

Hystaspis  says  in  the  Behistun  Inscription,  iv,  64,  that 
he  ruled  according  to  the  law,  and  Darius  the  Mede  is 
apparently  bound  by  the  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians 
which  changeth  not.  But  Herodotus  says  that  Cam- 
byses,  likewise,  was  bound  by  the  law  in  the  same  way 
(Book  III,  31).  And,  in  fact,  it  is  not  for  one  moment 
to  be  supposed,  that  there  ever  was  a  king  that  did  not 
rule  his  kingdom  in  accordance  with  some  system  of 
laws  and  customs  which  he  could  not  transgress  if 
he  would,  except  in  peril  of  losing  his  throne.  The 
Babylonian  kings  from  Hammurabi  to  Nabunaid  boast 
of  their  observance  of  the  laws  of  the  lands  which  they 
ruled;  and  the  cause  of  the  overthrow  of  the  latter  is 
said  in  the  Cyrus  Cylinder  to  have  been  that  he  had 
not  observed  the  laws.  What  it  is  necessary  to  show, 
however,  in  this  connection  is,  not  that  Darius  Hystas- 
pis and  the  Darius  of  Daniel  both  observed  laws;  nor 
that  they  were  both  bound  by  laws  beyond  their  control; 
but  that  Darius  Hystaspis  issued  some  particular  edict, 
or  broke  some  particular  law,  which  the  author  of  Dan- 
iel asserts  to  have  been  done  by  Darius  the  Mede.  So, 
also,  with  regard  to  the  edicts  of  the  Darius  of  Daniel,  it 
will  not  suffice  to  prove  that  he  is  a  reflection  of 
Daniel  Hystaspis  to  show  that  both  issued  edicts;  but, 
it  must  be  shown  at  least  that  they  issued  the  same, 
or  similar,  edicts  with  reference  to  the  same  or  similar 
subjects  in  the  same  or  similar  circumstances,  and 
with  the  same  or  similar  enacting  clauses.  Now,  it  is 
absolutely  certain  that  this  cannot  be  shown;  and 
until  it  be  shown,  we  can  confidently  believe,  that 
Darius  the  Mede  is  in  this  respect,  also,  no  reflection  of 
Darius  Hystaspis.  For  example,  it  would  not  be 
enough  to  show  that  Darius  Hystaspis  had  a  den  of 
lions,  and  that  he  punished  offenders  by  throwing  them 


250  The  Book  of  Daniel 

to  these  lions,  to  render  it  certain  that  the  den  of  lions 
of  the  book  of  Daniel  was  a  reflection  of  that  of  Darius 
Hystaspis.  It  would  need  to  be  proven  that  other  kings 
before  and  after  Darius  Hystaspis  did  not  possess  such 
a  den.  The  probability  is  that  if  one  king  had  a 
den  of  lions,  another,  also,  would  have  one,  and  not 
the  reverse.  And,  if  a  king  had  a  den  of  lions,  they 
must  be  fed;  and  so  it  is  not  far  to  the  cry:  "The 
Christians  to  the  lions."  It  would  be  an  exemplary, 
condign,  and  effective,  punishment.  It  would  save 
the  double  expense  of  the  executing  of  the  criminal  and 
of  the  food  for  the  lions! 

But  since  the  author  of  Daniel  represents  his  Darius 
as  casting  a  man  into  a  den  of  lions  a  similar  case 
with  the  same  name  and  offense  and  punishment 
found  recorded  as  having  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Dar- 
ius Hystaspis  would  afford  a  strong  presumption  that 
one  had  been  copied,  or  was  a  reflection  of  the  other ; 
but  it  would  still  have  to  be  proven  (even  if  it 
were  admitted,  that  the  two  accounts  referred  to  the 
same  event)  which  of  the  authors  it  was  who  copied 
from  the  other.  If,  for  example,  Herodotus  had  said 
that  Darius  Hystaspis  had  cast  a  man  called  Daniel 
into  a  den  of  lions,  it  would  be  possible,  that  Herodo- 
tus had  made  a  mistake  as  to  his  Darius.  It  would 
not  prove,  that  the  author  of  Daniel  had  made  a  mis- 
take in  saying  that  another  Darius  did  so.  Much 
less  would  it  prove,  that  a  late  author  had  simply 
reflected  back  this  story  from  the  later  to  a  supposed 
earlier  Darius.  Besides,  each  king  may  have  cast  a 
man,  or  many  men  for  that  matter,  into  a  den  of  lions; 
and  there  may  have  been  a  mistake  in  names  merely. 
Take,  for  illustration,  the  cases  of  the  Decii  and  of 
the    two    Henrys    mentioned    by    Prof.    Edward    A. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  251 

Freeman  in  his  Methods  of  Historical  Study,  ^      He 
says: 

The  practice  of  rejecting  a  story  merely  because  some 
thing  very  like  it  happened  once  before  is  one  that  must 
be  used  with  great  caution.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
events  often  do  repeat  one  another;  it  is  likely  that  they 
should  repeat  one  another;  not  only  are  like  causes  likely 
to  produce  like  results,  but  in  events  that  depend  on  the 
hvunan  will  it  is  often  likely  that  one  man  will  act  in  a  cer- 
tain way  simply  because  another  man  acts  in  the  same  way 
before  him.  I  have  often  thought  how  easily  two  important 
reigns  in  our  own  history  might  be  dealt  with  in  the  way 
that  I  have  spoken  of,  how  easily  the  later  reign  might  be 
judged  to  be  a  mere  repetition  of  the  former,  if  we  knew  no 
more  of  them  than  we  know  of  some  other  parts  of  history. 
Let  us  suppose  that  the  reigns  of  Henry  the  First  and  Henry 
the  Second  were  known  to  us  only  in  the  same  meager  way 
that  we  know  the  reigns  of  some  of  the  ancient  potentates 
of  the  East.  In  short  and  dry  annals  they  might  easily 
be  told  so  as  to  look  like  the  same  story.  Each  king  bears 
the  same  name;  each  reigns  the  same  number  of  years;  each 
comes  to  the  crown  in  a  way  other  than  succession  from 
father  to  son ;  each  restores  order  after  a  time  of  confusion ; 
each  improves  his  political  position  by  his  marriage;  each 
is  hailed  as  a  restorer  of  the  old  native  kingship;  each  loses 
his  eldest  son ;  each  gives  his  daughter  Matilda  to  a  Henry 
in  Germany;  each  has  a  controversy  with  his  archbishop; 
each  wages  war  with  France;  each  dies  in  his  continental 
dominions;  each,  if  our  supposed  meager  annals  can  be 
supposed  to  tell  us  of  such  points,  shows  himself  a  great 
lawgiver  and  administrator  and  each,  to  some  extent,  dis- 
plays the  same  personal  qualities,  good  and  bad.  Now 
when  we  come  really  to  study  the  reigns,  we  see  that  the 
details  of  all  these  supposed  points  of  likeness  are  utterly 

« Pp.  138, 139. 


252  The  Book  of  Daniel 

different;  but  I  am  supposing  very  meager  annals,  such  as 
are  very  often  all  that  we  can  get,  and  in  such  annals,  the 
two  tales  would  very  likely  be  so  told  that  a  master  of  the 
higher  criticism  might  cast  aside  Henry  the  Second  and  his 
acts  as  a  mere  double  of  his  grandfather  and  his  acts.  We 
know  how  very  far  wrong  such  a  judgment  would  be ;  and 
this  should  make  us  cautious  in  applying  a  rule  which, 
though  often  very  useful,  is  always  dangerous  in  cases 
where  we  may  get  utterly  wrong  without  knowing  it. 

Again,  he  says,  on  page   135  of  the  same  work: 
There  is 

in  some  quarters  a  tendency  to  take  for  granted  that  any 
story  which  seems  to  repeat  another  must  necessarily 
be  a  repetition  of  it,  a  repetition  of  it  in  the  sense  which 
implies  that  the  second  story  never  happened.  I  have 
read  a  German  writer  who  holds  that  the  devotion  of  the 
second  Publius  Decius  at  Sentinum  is  simply  the  devotion 
of  the  first  Publius  Decius  by  Vesuvius  over  again.  Now, 
setting  aside  whatever  amount  of  evidence  we  may  think 
that  we  have  for  the  second  story,  if  we  bring  it  to  a  ques- 
tion of  likelihood,  there  is  certainly  the  likelihood  that  the 
exploit  of  the  father  should  be  told  again  as  an  exploit  of 
the  son;  but  there  is  also  the  likelihood  that  the  son,  finding 
himself  in  the  like  case  with  his  father,  should  be  stirred  up 
to  follow  the  example  of  his  father.  Most  people,  I  fancy, 
accept  the  story  of  the  second  Decius. 

While  the  Decii  and  the  first  two  Henrys  of  England 
may  thus  be  taken  as  examples  of  the  fact  that  men 
of  the  same  name  may  perform  different  deeds  in  a  hke 
way,  we  may  take  the  various  recorded  captures  of 
Babylon  as  illustrating  how  Hke  events  may  be  per- 
formed by  different  persons  and  in  widely  different  times. 
Passing  by  the  successive  seizures  of  the  city  of  Baby- 
lon   by    Tiglath-Pileser,    Sargon,    Sennacherib,   Esar- 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  253 

had  don,  and  Ashurbanipal — all  of  which  had  points  of 
similarity, — attention  may  be  specially  called  to  the 
different  captures  by  the  Persian  kings,  Cjtus,  Darius 
(at  two  different  times),  and  Xerxes.  From  the  scanty 
information  in  our  possession,  it  is  utterly  impossible 
for  us  to  distinguish  many  of  the  features  of  these 
numerous  seizures  and  capitulations,  although  we  are 
certain  as  to  the  fact  of  their  occurrence.  To  be  noted 
is  the  fact,  that  the  position  of  Babylon  and  its  power 
rendered  it  the  head  center  of  rebellious  forces  and  the 
objective  of  the  attack  of  the  contending  powers. 

So,  then,  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  it  was  re- 
corded of  Darius  the  Mede,  and  likewise  of  Darius 
Ilystaspis,  that  each  of  them  had  cast  a  man  into  a  den 
of  lions,  this  would  not  prove  that  one  of  these  accounts 
was  copied  from  the  other,  or  that  one  of  them  had  not 
cast  a  man  to  the  lions.  It  would  rather  raise  a  presump- 
tion that  the  kings  of  those  times  were  in  the  habit  of 
casting  men  to  the  lions.  Fortunately  for  our  present 
argument,  there  is  no  record  of  the  casting  of  men  to  the 
lions  on  the  part  of  Darius  Hystaspis,  nor  in  fact  by  any 
other  Persian  king;  and  hence  the  account  in  Daniel 
cannot,  so  far  as  we  know,  be  a  reflection,  a  casting 
back  upon  the  canvas  depicting  the  deeds  of  Darius 
the  Mede,  of  an  event  which  really  transpired  under 
another's  reign.  Nothing  reflects  nothing,  whether  in 
the  realm  of  matter,  or  in  that  of  history,  or  in  that  of 
fiction. 

Seventhly,  is  it  possible  that  a  man  like  Daniel  may 
have  stood  in  such  a  relation  to  Darius  the  Mede  as  the 
book  of  Daniel  represents?'  Or,  putting  it  in  other 
words,  if  it  be  impossible  that  a  man  like  Daniel  could 
have  occupied  such  a  relation,  wherein  consists  the 

»  See  p.  223 


254  The  Book  of  Daniel 

impossibility  ?  Is  it  because  no  man  could  have  occupied 
such  a  relation  to  him?  Or,  because  Darius  the  Mede 
was  such  a  king  that  no  man  could  have  stood  in  such  a 
relation  to  him?  Or,  is  it  because  Daniel  was  such  a 
man  that  he  could  not  have  stood  in  such  a  relation  to 
a  king  ?  Let  us  answer  the  above  questions  in  their  order. 

(i)  It  is  not  impossible  that  a  man  should  stand  in 
such  a  relation  to  a  king  as  Daniel  is  said  to  have 
occupied  to  Darius  the  Mede.  The  very  fact  that  the 
writer  of  Daniel  says  that  he  occupied  this  relation 
argues  for  its  possibility.  For,  whatever  and  whoever 
the  writer  of  Daniel  was,  he  was  certainly  anything  but 
a  fool.  Whether  he  h.as  written  history  or  fiction,  he 
must  have  thought  this  relation  possible. 

Besides,  the  critics  who  deny  the  historicity  of  Daniel 
claim  that  he  wrote  to  comfort  the  Jews  of  Maccabean 
times  with  a  fictitious  narrative  bearing  the  similitude 
of  truth.  To  those  Jews  for  whom  Daniel  wrote 
the  account,  such  a  relation  must,  therefore,  have 
seemed  to  be  possible.  Otherwise,  the  whole  story  of 
the  book  would  have  been  absurd,  and  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  written  would  have  been  made  of  no  effect. 
But  no  one  has  claimed  that  it  was  of  no  effect.  On  the 
contrary,  all  admit  that  few  books  have  exerted  a  greater 
influence  upon  after  times  than  has  this  book  of  Daniel. 
It  has  remained  for  the  modern  critic  to  discover  that 
one  of  the  main  features  of  the  story — Daniel's  relation 
to  Darius  the  Mede — was  impossible.  Apparently, 
this  view  of  the  case  never  struck  the  people  who  lived  in 
the  times  when  there  were  kings  of  Persia,  and  others 
of  like  character.  To  them  it  seemed  to  be  in  harmony 
with  what  they  knew  of  kings,  that  they  should  have 
men  like  Daniel  occupying  such  relations  to  them. 

But  to  specify  and  illustrate.     If  it  were  impossible 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  255 

for  Daniel  to  have  stood  in  such  a  relation  to  Darius, 
how  was  it  possible  for  Joseph  to  have  been  in  such 
relations  with  the  king  of  Egypt  as  Genesis  represents 
him  to  have  been?  If  this  last  relationship,  also,  is 
said  to  have  been  impossible,  for  what  purpose,  then, 
did  the  author  say  that  it  actually  existed?  He,  at 
least,  must  have  thought  that  it  was  possible. 

Again,  if  this  story  of  Daniel  in  relation  to  Darius  is 
impossible,  how  about  Achikar,  the  sage  of  Nineveh, 
in  his  relation  to  Sennacherib  and  Esarhaddon,  kings 
of  Assyria?  The  author  of  this  story  certainly  thought 
that  it  was  possible  for  a  man  like  Daniel  to  have 
occupied  such  a  relation  to  a  king.  Again,  the  Arabian 
Nights,  that  best  of  all  illustrators  of  Eastern  manners 
and  customs,  gives  us  numerous  examples  of  just  such 
men  as  Daniel  occupying  the  same  relations  to  the  king 
they  served.  Such  men  are  the  sage  Douban  in  his 
relation  to  the  Grecian  king,  and  the  vizier  Giafar  in  his 
relation  to  the  caliph  Haroun  al  Rashid. ' 

What  we  know  of  the  kings  of  Persia,  also,  shows 
us  that  they  did  have  such  counsellors.  It  is  necessary 
only  to  mention  Democedes  under  Darius  Hystaspis, 
Demaratus  under  Xerxes,  and  Ctesias  under  Artaxerxes. 

(2)  Secondly,  is  the  character  of  Darius  the  Mede 
such  as  would  justify  us  in  supposing  that  Daniel  could 
not  have  stood  in  the  relation  to  him  that  the  sixth 
chapter  of  Daniel  describes? 

The  answer  to  this  question  must  be  derived  from 
the  account  of  Darius  given  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Daniel;  and,  if  we  identify  Darius  with  Gobryas,  from 
the  records  of  the  Cyrus  Cylinder  also.  From  these 
sources  we  learn  that  he  had  the  following  charac- 
teristics: 

'  See  Lane,  vol.  i,  37,  61. 


2s6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

First,  he  was  a  good  and  successful  general. 

Secondly,  he  was  deemed  worthy  to  receive  from 
Cyrus  the  realm  of  Belshazzar  the  Chaldean. 

Thirdly,  he  showed  great  ability  as  an  organizer. 

Fourthly,  he  listened  to  and  followed  the  advice  of 
his  counsellors. 

Fifthly,  he  showed  wisdom  in  the  choice  of  a  prime 
minister;  for  he  preferred  Daniel,  because  an  excellent 
spirit  was  in  him. 

Sixthly,  he  was  faithful  to  his  friends,  as  is  shown  by 
the  way  he  sought  to  release  Daniel. 

Seventhly,  sometimes,  at  least,  he  was  weak  and 
easily  deceived,  as  is  shown  by  the  way  he  allowed  him- 
self to  be  imposed  upon  by  the  enemies  of  Daniel. 

Eighthly,  he  was  pious ;  for  he  believed  that  the  God 
of  Daniel  was  able  to  deliver  him  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  lions. 

Ninthly,  he  was  vain  and  filled  with  a  heathenish 
sense  of  the  divinity  of  kings;  else,  he  would  never 
have  allowed  a  decree  to  have  been  made  that  no  one 
should  ask  a  petition  of  anyone  for  forty  days,  save 
of  him. 

Tenthly,  and  yet  he  was  just.  When  things  went 
wrong,  he  was  sore  displeased  with  himself.  He  obeyed 
the  law,  even  when  it  was  against  his  will  and  judg- 
ment. In  accordance  with  the  lex  talionis,  he  punished 
those  who  had  sought  to  encompass  the  death  of 
Daniel  with  the  same  death  that  they  had  attempted  to 
inflict  on  him;  and  he  apparently  restored  Daniel  to  the 
position  from  which  he  had  been  unjustly  deposed. 

Eleventhly,  he  was  sorry  when  he  had  done  wrong. 
He  was  sore  displeased  with  himself,  and  fasted  and  lay 
awake  all  night;  and  was  exceedingly  glad  when  Daniel 
was  saved. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  257 

Twelfthly,  he  was  laborious.  He  organized  the  king- 
dom, receiving  reports  from  his  counsellors,  labored 
all  day  to  deliver  Daniel,  rose  early  in  the  morning 
to  hasten  to  the  den  of  lions,  and  himself  wrote  a  decree 
to  honor  the  God  of  Daniel. 

In  short,  Darius  the  Mede  was  no  fickle,  vengeful, 
lustful,  oriental  tyrant;  but  a  wide-awake,  beneficent, 
and  very  human  ruler.  Why  should  it  be  thought  an 
impossible  thing  that  such  a  king  should  have  selected  for 
his  chief  adviser  and  administrator  such  a  man  as  Daniel? 

(3)  Thirdly  and  lastly,  the  alleged  impossibility 
of  Daniel's  having  stood  in  the  relation  to  Darius  in 
which  the  book  of  Daniel  represents  him  to  have  been, 
cannot  be  shown  from  what  is  said  of  Daniel  himself. 
For,  first,  it  could  not  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  he 
was  a  Jew.  If  it  did,  we  would  have  to  reject  the 
stories  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Mordecai,  as  well  as 
that  of  Daniel;  for  these  all  were  Jews  who  are  said 
to  have  occupied  high  official  positions  at  the  Persian 
court.  Furthermore,  the  story  of  Joseph,  also,  implies 
the  possibility  of  an  Israelite's  rise  to  the  highest  posi- 
tion at  a  heathen  court.  The  stories  of  Tobit  and 
Achikar  and  Aristeas,  also,  show  that  the  Jews  thought 
at  least,  that  Israelites  could  be  promoted  to  the  first 
places  in  the  gift  of  the  "kings  of  Egypt  and  Assyria. 
Finally,  the  Jewish  writers  would  scarcely  have  intro- 
duced Jews  as  playing  such  roles  in  their  works,  even 
if  these  works  were  purely  fictitious,  unless  they  knew 
that  such  positions  were  open  to  Jews. 

Nor,  secondly,  would  such  a  position  be  impossible  to 
Daniel  because  he  was  a  slave ;  for  from  time  immemorial 
all  the  officers  of  an  oriental  king  had  been  looked  upon 
as  his  slaves.  Thus,  in  the  Tel-el-Amama  letters,  all  of 
the  officers  and  sub-kings  of  the  king  of  Egypt  are  called 
17 


258  The  Book  of  Daniel 

his  slaves.  Cyrus  even  is  called  by  Nabunaid  the  little 
slave  of  Astyages. '  Darius  Hystaspis,  also,  speaks  of 
Wohumis,  one  of  the  greatest  of  his  generals  whom  he 
had  selected  to  put  down  the  rebellion  of  the  Armenians, 
as  his  slave.  ^ 

Further,  we  may  cite  the  instances  of  Tobit  and  Achi- 
kar,  who  are  said  to  have  been  captives  and  slaves,  and 
notwithstanding  this  to  have  been  elevated  to  the 
highest  positions  at  the  Assyrian  court,  the  former  as 
purveyor,  the  latter  as  counsellor  or  vizier.  The 
Arabian  Nights  contain  not  infrequent  examples  of 
such  promotions  of  slaves;  and  the  history  of  India  gives 
numerous  instances  of  it.  Unfortunately,  the  Babylon- 
ian and  Persian  records  contain  so  Httle  information 
about  the  officers  of  the  kings  that  it  is  impossible  to 
find  out  much  about  their  origin,  race,  social  position, 
or  even  their  names. 

Nor,  thirdly,  can  it  have  been  because  Daniel  was  not 
capable  of  performing  the  duties  that  he  is  represented 
as  performing.  According  to  the  only  account  of  his 
education,  that  we  possess,  he  had  been  specially  pre- 
pared to  stand  before  the  king,  and  God  had  given  him 
the  knowledge  and  wisdom  necessary  for  the  work  in 
life  to  which  he  was  afterwards  called.  Furthermore, 
according  to  this  same  account,  he  discharged  his 
functions  so  well  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  that  he  was 
continued  in  high  service  until  the  reign  of  Cyrus. 
Lastly,  Ezekiel,  the  only  other  biblical  record  that 
mentions  him,  puts  him  on  a  par  with  Noah  and  Job 
as  one  of  the  three  well  known  wise  men  to  whom  the 
prophet  could  refer  his  hearers.  ^ 

»  KB.  ii,  ill,  ii,  98. 

»  Bab.,  gallu;  Aram.,  'elam.    See  Behistun  Insc,  xxv. 

'Ezek.  xiv,  14,  20;  xxviii,  3. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  259 

For  all  these  reasons  one  may  justly  conclude,  that  it 
is  entirely  possible  that  a  man  like  Daniel  may  have 
stood  in  such  a  relation  to  Darius  the  Median  king  as 
that  in  which  the  book  of  Daniel  represents  him  to  have 
stood. 

Eighthly,  nor  is  there  any  evidence  of  a  reflection 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  character  of  the  two 
Dariuses.  *  The  principal  trait  in  common  is,  that  they 
were  both  organizers.  But  this  common  feature  was 
rendered  necessary  by  the  fact  that  a  common  situation 
confronted  them.  They  were  both  kings  of  a  newly 
conquered  kingdom,  whose  government  had  to  be 
reduced  to  order.  If  the  Ugbaru  {i,  e.,  Gubaru,  Gobryas) 
of  the  monuments  be  Darius  the  Mede,  we  have  the 
evidence  that  he  did  organize  the  country  of  Babylon 
by  appointing  governors  under  himself,  he  himself  being 
under  Cyrus.  So  Darius  Hystaspis  organized  his 
greater  kingdom.  There  is  no  inconsistency  in  the 
statement  that  they  each  organized  their  respective 
governments;  neither  does  it  follow  that  the  author 
who  says  that  either  of  them  did  thus  organize  his 
kingdom  was  reflecting  merely  the  organization  made 
by  the  other.  There  must  have  been  an  organized 
government  during  the  reign  of  Cyrus  and  Cambyses 
and  their  subordinates;  there  must  have  been  a  re- 
organization by  Darius  Hystaspis  after  he  had  recon- 
quered the  empire  which  had  gone  to  pieces  on  the 
death  of  the  Magus.  Each  organization  was  abso- 
lutely necessary  and  neither  is  a  reflection  of  the  other. 

Nor,  can  it  be  said  that  the  friendship  and  loyalty 

which  the  Darius  of  Daniel  showed  to  Daniel  was  a 

reflection  of  the  character  of  Darius  Hystaspis.     True, 

Darius  Hystaspis  was,  in  this  respect,  and  in  every 

» See  p.  223. 


26o  The  Book  of  Daniel 

respect,  one  of  the  noblest  and  best  of  the  rulers  of  all 
time.  He  justified  his  boast:  ''the  man  who  was  my 
friend,  him  have  I  well  protected.  "^  His  treatment  of 
Sylosen,  whom  he  made  tyrant  of  Samos  because  he 
had  given  him  a  cloak  in  Egypt  before  he  became  kingi^" 
his  generosity  to  the  Greek  Physician  Democedes  who 
had  healed  him  and  his  queen  Atossa  of  their  com- 
plaints;^ his  faithfulness  to  Histiaeus  the  Milesian 
during  all  of  his  tergiversations  ;4  his  treatment  of  Zopy- 
rus  and  Megabysus,^  and  of  his  fellow  conspirators*^ 
all  attest  this  characteristic  and  approve  his  claim. 
But  he  was  not  the  only  monarch  who  was  friendly 
to  his  friends.  Cyrus,  also,  was  thus  faithful  and 
kindly.  According  to  Xenophon  in  his  Cyropcedia, 
he  was  a  model  in  his  respect.  Herodotus  tells  of  the 
position  of  honor  he  gave  to  Harpagus,  who  aided 
him  in  the  overthrow  of  Astyages;  and  of  his  kind 
treatment  of  Astyages  and  Croesus.  He  himself 
speaks  in  his  Cylinder  Inscription  of  his  kindness  to 
Nabunaid  and  of  his  faithful  conduct  to  Ugbaru. 
Besides,  the  other  kings  of  Persia  such  as  Artaxerxes  I 
and  II  and  Darius  Nothus  have  left  many  examples  of 
their  generosity  and  faithfulness.  These  are  not  such 
uncommon  traits  in  kings,  that  the  fact  that  two  kings 
are  said  to  have  had  them  is  evidence  that  someone  has 
reflected  to  his  hero  the  lineaments  of  the  other. 

The  same  may  be  said  of  the  piety,  belief  in  God  or 
the  gods,  manifested  in  the  Darius  of  the  sixth  chapter 
of  Daniel.  * '  Thy  God, ' '  says  Darius  to  Daniel,  *  *  whom 
thou  servest  continually,  he  will  deliver  thee."     This 

'  Behistun  Inscr.,  i,  21.  »  Herodotus,  Bk.  Ill,  139-149. 

J/J.,  Bk.  iil,  129-138. 

*Id.,  Bk.  IV,  137-141,  V,  11,23,24,  30,38,  105,  107,  VI,  1-5,  26-30. 
s  Id.,  Bk.  Ill,  160;  iv,  143.  6  Behistun,  Ins,  iv,  80-86. 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  261 

sentiment  cannot  be  paralleled  in  the  inscriptions  of 
Darius  Hystaspis.  It  is  true  that  he  has  what  might 
be  called  a  general  piety,  a  trust  in  the  favor  which 
Auramazda,  his  god,  had  for  him,  expressed  in  such 
phrases  as:  "Through  the  grace  of  Auramazda  I  am 
king";  "Auramazda  gave  me  the  kingdom*';'  "Then 
cried  I  to  Auramazda  for  help.  Auramazda  assisted 
me";^    "Through  the  grace  of  Auramazda,    I  did  it, 

I  have  wrought,  until  I  have  placed  again  this  our 
family  in  its  place,  as  it  was  before;  so  have  I  done 
through  the  grace  of  Auramazda";  and  others  of  a 
like  nature.  Or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  inscription  of 
Elwend:  "A  great  god  is  Auramazda,  who  creates  this 
world,  who  creates  yon  heaven,  who  creates  mankind, 
who  creates  pleasure  for  men,  who  made  Darius  king, 
the  only  king  among  men,  the  only  lord  of  many,  "^ 
But,  Xerxes  and  Darius  Ochus  and  Artaxerxes  I  and 

II  have  similar  phrases  in  their  inscriptions,  and  have  left 
us  many  proofs  of  a  similar  piety  and  trust  in  their  god 
or  gods.  Cyrus  says  that  Marduk  called  him  to  the  king- 
dom of  the  totality  of  all  (the  world)  (Cylinder  10-12) ; 
that  he  looked  upon  his  (Cyrus')  deeds  and  subdued 
tmder  him  the  host  of  Manda  and  all  men  (13-14) ;  that 
he  commanded  him  to  go  to  Babylon  and  like  a  friend 
and  helper  went  along  at  his  side  (15) ;  that  he  who  makes 
the  dead  alive  approached  him  graciously  (19);  that 
Merodach,  his  lord  whom  he  worshiped,  had  drawn 
nigh  to  him  graciously  (27-35).  The  inscription  of 
Antiochus  Soter,  who  reigned  from  280  to  260  B.  c,  is 
full,  also,  of  similar  pious  expressions.'*  So  that  it  is 
obvious,  that  a  general  piety  which  all  kings  of  the 

«  BeMstun,  i,  ii,  12;  59,  60.  *  Id.,  i,  54,  55. 

3  So  also  in  the  similar  inscription  of    Persepolis    and    Ncksh-i- 
Rustatn.  ^  See  Schrader,  KB.,  iii-ii,  136-139. 


262  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Orient  showed  toward  their  gods,  or  god,  cannot  be  pro- 
duced when  found  in  any  particular  one  as  an  argument 
to  show  that  his  piety  was  reflected  from  theirs  or  theirs 
from  his.  They  were  all  more  or  less  pious,  or,  if  you 
prefer,  superstitious.  Darius  Hystaspis,  being  a  Per- 
sian, and  the  Darius  of  Daniel,  being  a  Mede,  and  thus  of 
the  same  family  of  nations,  and  with,  perhaps,  the  same 
religion,  may  well  have  worshiped  the  same  god,  or 
gods ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  anyivhere  except  perhaps 
in  Ezra,  that  Darius  Hystaspis  ever  honored  the  God  of 
Daniel,  the  God  of  Israel,  or  declared  his  belief  in  that 
God's  ability  to  save  a  man  from  anything  and  certainly 
not  from  a  den  of  lions. 

Again,  there  is  a  semblance  of  weakness,  of  depend- 
ence upon  others,  of  susceptibility  to  flattery,  about 
the  Darius  of  Daniel,  for  which  no  parallel  can  be  found 
in  Darius  Hystaspis.  Neither  his  inscriptions,  nor 
any  of  the  other  sources  of  information  which  we  have 
concerning  him,  give  us  the  slightest  intimation,  that 
he  was  anything  other  than  a  strong,  independent,  self- 
reliant,  conquering  hero,  a  man  preeminently  sane 
and  free  from  that  susceptibility  to  flattery  which  doth 
surround  a  throne.  All  the  evidence  goes  to  show  that 
the  vacillating,  troubled,  penitent,  sleepless  Darius  of 
the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans,  whatever  else  he  may  have 
been,  cannot  have  been  a  reflection  of  the  self-satisfied, 
dominant,  and  enterprising  son  of  Hystaspis  who 
founded  and  ruled  triumphantly  the  greatest  empire 
that  the  world  till  then  had  ever  seen.  • 

And  lastly,  we  do  not  know  anything  in  the 
history  of  Darius  Hystaspis  which  would  cause  us  to 
conclude  that  he  ever  had  under  him  a  ruler  like  Daniel 
from  whom  a  late  writer  might  have  made  a  reflection 
backward  to  his  supposititious  Daniel.     The  monu- 


Darius  not  a  Reflection  263 

merits  of  Darius  fail  utterly  to  reveal  a  man  like  Daniel 
of  any  race  or  position.  In  fact,  the  Persian  kings  were 
in  general  free  from  the  influence  of  favorites  of  all 
kinds,  Arses  having  been  an  exception  in  this  regard. 
An  autocracy  which  depends  for  its  existence  upon 
the  skill  and  power  of  the  monarch  is  not  calculated 
to  cultivate  such  men.  So,  we  find,  that  in  Assyria, 
Babylonia,  and  Persia,  weaklings  soon  ceased  to  reign. 
Some  more  aggressive,  self-assertive,  or  intelligent 
brother,  or  rival,  speedily  made  an  end  of  them  by 
assassination  or  rebellion.  Witness  Evil-Marduk,  La- 
bashi-Marduk,  Xerxes  II,  and  Sogdianus  and  Arses  and 
even  Astyages  and  Nabunaid.  When  an  autocrat 
ceased  to  be  a  real  autocrat,  his  doom  was  sealed. 
Richard  II,  Edward  II,  and  Henry  VI  are  more  recent 
examples.  But  a  Darius  Hystaspis!  A  man,  one  of 
the  most  strenuous,  self-dependent,  active,  intelligent, 
and  successful  of  all  the  autocratic  monarchs  who  ever 
lived!  We  would  not  expect  to  find,  we  do  not  find,  in 
any  records  of  Greek,  or  other,  source,  any  intimation, 
that  he  ever  submitted  for  a  moment  to  give  over  the 
government  of  his  kingdom  into  the  hands  of  another, 
as  Darius  the  Mede  is  said  in  Daniel  to  have  done. 
In  so  far  as  Darius  the  Mede  did  this,  he  cannot  have 
been  a  reflection  of  Darius  Hystaspis. 


CHAPTER    XIII 

OTHER  ALLEGED   CONFUSIONS    OF   KINGS 

VII. '  It  is  assumed  that  when  the  author  of  Daniel 
makes  the  fourth  of  the  Persian  kings  mentioned  in 
Chapter  xi,  2,  to  "be  exceedingly  rich  and  to  provoke  a 
mighty  war  against  Greece,"  it  is  clear  that  he  has 
confused  Xerxes  and  Darius  HystavSpis  by  making 
them  one  and  the  same  person.  =* 

In  support  of  this  assumption,  appeal  is  made  to 
Dan.  xi,  2,  with  which  it  is  said,  Dan.  vii,  6,  is  con- 
fused. The  latter  verse  reads  in  the  Reviser's  text: 
"After  this  I  beheld,  and,  lo,  another,  like  a  leopard, 
which  had  upon  the  back  of  it  four  wings  of  a  fowl; 
the  beast  had  also  four  heads;  and  dominion  was 
given  it." 

The  natural  interpretation  of  this  figure  is  that  the 
wings  denote  velocity  and  the  heads  voracity.  There 
is  absolutely  no  proof  that  the  wings  denote  swiftness 
and  the  heads  four  kings,  as  Von  Lengerke  and  others 
assert.  Besides,  it  is  an  assumption,  which  itself 
needs  to  be  proven,  that  the  leopard  is  meant  to  denote 
Persia,  and  not  Alexander  the  Great.  Since  the 
Scriptures  outside  of  Daniel,  as  well  as  the  monuments 
and  the  classical  authors,  uniformly  represent  Cyrus 
as  the  one  who  overthrew  the  Babylonian  empire,  it  is 

»  See  p.  162.  a  Cornill,  Introduction,  p.  385. 

264 


Other  Alleged  Confusions  265 

impossible  for  us  to  conjecture  where  the  author  of 
Daniel  could  have  received  the  false  information  which 
would  have  led  him  to  believe  that  a  Median  empire 
intervened  between  the  Babylonian  and  the  Persian. 
Even  if  he  had  been  writing  a  fiction,  as  the  writer  on 
Daniel  in  a  recent  Bible  Dictionary  affirms  that  he  did, 
he  would  scarcely  have  made  so  unnecessary  a  blunder 
and  one  so  easy  to  be  detected.  We  can  only  conclude, 
then,  that  he  was  an  ignoramus,  who  knew  nothing 
about  the  sources  of  information  which  were  easily 
accessible  to  him;  or  an  impostor,  who  presumed  on  a 
crass  and  impossible  ignorance  of  their  own,  as  well  as  of 
Persian  history,  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  of  Maccabean 
times;  whom,  according  to  his  modem  critics,  he  was 
wishing  to  comfort  and  encourage  by  his  "edifying  re- 
ligious narrations.**  But,  how  can  a  man  who  is  sup- 
posed to  have  known  that  "the  names  of  only  four 
Persian  kings  are  mentioned  in  the  O.  T.**  have  been 
so  ignorant  of  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  as  not 
to  know  that  they  uniformly  represent  Cyrus  as  the 
conqueror  of  Babylon  and  the  Persians  as  the  imme- 
diate successors  of  the  Babylonians?  However  late 
the  second  part  of  Isaiah  may  have  been  written,  no  one 
can  doubt,  that  it  was  written  long  before  the  middle  of 
the  second  century  B.C.,  and  that  it  represents  Je- 
hovah's servant  Cyrus  as  fulfilling  his  will  upon  Baby- 
lon.'  In  Ezra  and  2  Chronicles,  also,  Cyrus  is  the 
one  uniformly  designated  as  the  conqueror  of  Babylon.  * 
No  mention  is  made  anywhere  in  the  Bible  outside  or 
inside  of  Daniel  of  the  name  of  any  king  of  Media,  nor 
of  any  special  conquest  of  Babylon  by  the  Medes 

*  Isa.  xliv,  and  xlv. 

»  Ez.a  i,  I,  2,  7,  8;  iii,  7;  iv,  3,  5;  v,  13,  14,  17;  vi,  3,  14;  2  Chron. 
xxxvi,  22,  23. 


266  The  Book  of  Daniel 

alone,  nor  of  any  ruling  of  Median  kings  over  Babylon. 
Appeal  is  made  to  Isaiah  xiii,  17,  and  xxi,  2,  and  to 
Jeremiah,  li,  11,  28,  to  show  that  these  were  the  sources 
of  his  information.  Isaiah  xiii,  17  reads:  "Behold,  I 
will  stir  up  the  Medes^  against  them  [i,  e,,  the  Baby- 
lonians.]'* Isaiah  xxi,  2,  reads:  "Go  up,  0;  Elam 
besiege,  O  Media, "  and  verse  9  shows  that  Babylon  is 
the  object  of  the  attack.  In  Jeremiah  li,  11,  we  read, 
"The  Lord  hath  stirred  up  the  spirit  of  the  kings  of  the 
Medes,  because  his  device  is  against  Babylon  to 
destroy  it. "     In  Jeremiah  li,  27-29,  we  read: 

Set  ye  up  a  standard  in  the  land,  blow  the  trumpet  among 
the  nations,  prepare  the  nations  against  her,  call  together 
against  her  the  kingdoms  of  Ararat,  Minni,  and  Ashkenaz: 
appoint  a  marshal^  against  her;  cause  the  horses  to  come 
up  as  the  rough  canker-worm.  Prepare  against  her  the 
nations,  the  kings  of  the  Medes,  the  governors^  thereof, 
and  all  the  deputies  ^  thereof,  and  all  the  land  of  their  domin- 
ion. And  the  land  trembleth  and  is  in  pain;  for  the  ptir- 
poses  of  Jehovah  against  Babylon  do  stand,  to  make  the 
land  of  Babylon  a  desolation,  without  inhabitant. 

Further  in  2  Kings  xvii,  6,  and  xviii,  1 1 ,  it  is  said  that  the 
king  of  Assyria,  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  and  Isaiah,  set- 
tled the  captive  children  of  Israel  in  the  cities  of  Media. 
From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  Media  must  have 
been  well  known  in  the  time  of  Isaiah  and  we  may  well 
believe  to  every  succeeding  Jewish  writer  of  any  ordi- 
nary intelligence.  The  better  one  knows  the  history  of 
the  land  of  Media,  the  better  also  will  he  recognize 
the  appropriateness  with  which  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah 

*  Heb.  Maday.  •  Hebrew,  tifsar. 

J  Hebrew,  pdhSth,  4  Hebrew,  sagan. 


Other  Alleged  Confusions  267 

use  the  designation.  According  to  Winckler,'  the 
conquering  Aryans,  who  were  conquerors  of  the  Persians, 
assumed,  or  were  given  by  their  neighbors,  the  name  of 
the  country  and  people  that  they  had  subdued.  Dur- 
ing the  time  of  the  Assyrian  dominations,  it  was,  and 
remained  unto  classical  times,  the  name  of  the  northern 
part  of  the  plateau  of  Iran;  the  latter  being  the  new 
name  afterward  given  to  it  from  its  Aryan  conquerors. 
Elam,  on  the  other  hand,  was  the  well  known  designa- 
tion of  the  country  between  the  Median  or  Iranian 
plateau  and  the  Persian  Gulf;  and  included  not  merely 
Susiana  (the  Uvaya  of  the  Persian  recension  of  the 
Behistun  Inscription),  but  Anshan,  the  land  which 
Cyrus  and  his  ancestors  ruled,  and  Persia  proper,  which 
Darius  and  his  ancestors  ruled  for  a  century  or  two 
before  the  captiu*e  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus.  The  Behistim 
Inscription  also  puts  Elam  under  the  Persian  dominion; 
though  Herodotus  calls  it  part  of  Susa  and  the  rest  of  the 
country  the  land  of  the  Cissians.^  The  other  lands 
mentioned  by  Jeremiah — ^Ararat,  Minni,  and  Ash- 
kenaz — constituted  what  Winckler  has  identified  as 
having  been  called  Gutium  by  the  Babylonians;  though 
the  name  had  probably  been  changed  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  country  denoted  by  it  at  the  time  when  Ugbaru 
was  its  satrap,  or  sub-king.  It  will  be  noted,  also,  that 
Jeremiah  speaks  of  Media  as  having  kings  and  not  a 
king,  when  it  is  stirred  up  against  Babylon.  This 
harmonizes  with  our  views  as  to  the  relation  in  which 
Ugbaru  stood  to  Cyrus.  He  was  one  king  of  many 
who  were  under  the  king  of  kings.  Another,  according 
to  the  Behistun  Inscription,  must  have  been  Hystaspis 
the  father,  or  Arsames,  the  grandfather  of  Darius  Hys- 

»  Untersuchungen  zur  altorient.     Geschichte,   p.  117. 
»  Bk.  III.  91. 


26S  The  Book  of  Daniel 

taspis;  for  Darius  declares  in  both  the  great  inscriptions 
at  Behistun  and  the  lesser  one,  called  A,  that  eight  of 
his  ancestors  had  been  king  before  him,  and  Herodotus 
states  that  Hystaspis  was  governor  Qiyparch)  of  Persia 
in  the  time  of  Smerdis  the  Magian. ' 

From  the  above  discussion,  it  will  appear,  then,  to  be 
true,  that  while  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Daniel  all  use  the 
name  Media  correctly,  and  say  only  what  is  absolutely 
exact  with  regard  to  it;  that  it  would  have  been  impossi- 
ble for  anyone  in  later  times  to  have  constructed  out  of 
the  meager  details  afforded  by  the  first  two,  such  an 
account  as  we  find  recorded  in  the  book  of  Daniel. 
They  are  all  three  perfectly  in  harmony  with  what  we 
have  from  other  sources;  but  no  one  of  them  could  have 
drawn  his  information  from  the  others, — ^least  of  all 
Daniel.  There  being,  then,  no  statement  anywhere  in 
the  Scriptures  to  the  effect  that  there  ever  was  an 
independent  Median  kingdom,  which  included  in  it  the 
land  of  Babylon;  nor  of  any  king  of  a  Median  empire, 
who  ever  conquered  it,  or  ruled  over  it;  it  seems  far- 
fetched to  maintain,  that  the  author  of  Daniel  ever 
imagined  that  a  Median  kingdom  came  in  between  the 
Babylonian  and  the  Persian.  In  Daniel  i,  21,  it  is  said 
that  Daniel  continued  unto  the  first  year  of  king  Cyrus; 
in  vi,  28,  it  is  said  that  he  prospered  in  the  reign  of 
Darius  and  in  the  reign  of  Cyrus  the  Persian.  Since 
Isaiah  xliv  and  xlv  had  attributed  the  conquest  of 
Babylon  to  Cyrus;  Isaiah  xiii,i7,  to  the  Medes;  Isaiah 
xxi,  2,  to  Elam^;  and  Jeremiah  li  to  Medes  and  others  3; 
it  is  easy  to  reconcile  all  the  statements  by  supposing 
that  all  of  these  people  together,  under  Cyrus  as  king, 
were  engaged  in  the  attack  on  Babylon.     There  is  every 

*  Bk.  Ill,  70.  » I.e.,  Anshan  where  Cyrus  ruled. 

3  I.e.,  Gutium,  of  which  Gobryas  was  governor  under  Cyrus. 


Other  Alleged  Confusions  269 

reason,  however,  for  believing  that  native  kings,  who 
submitted  to  Cyrus  and  the  other  Persian  kings  after 
him,  were  not  disturbed  in  their  sovereignty  over  their 
subjugated  states.  Witness  the  Syenneses,  kings  of 
Cilicia,  one  of  whom  was  and  remained  king  under 
Cyrus, ^  another  under  Darius,^  and  a  third  under 
Xerxes.  ^  Witness  Damasi thymus,  king  of  the  Calyndi- 
ans  who  served  in  the  Persian  fleet  and  was  killed  at 
Salaniis.4  Witness  the  kings  of  Cyprus,  ^  Gorgus,  king 
of  the  Salaminians;^  Aristocyprus,  son  of  Philocyprus, 
king  of  Soli.'^  Witness  Thannyras,  the  son  of  Inarus, 
the  Libyan,  and  Pausiris,  the  son  of  Amyrtaeus,  who 
received  from  the  Persian  king  the  governments  which 
their  fathers  had;  ** although  none  ever  did  more  injury 
to  the  Persians  than  Inarus  and  Amyrtasus";  for  *'the 
Persians  are  accustomed,"  says  Herodotus,  'Ho  honor 
the  sons  of  kings,  and  even  if  they  have  revolted  from 
them,  nevertheless  bestow  the  government  upon  their 
children.  "^  So,  Cyrus  says  in  his  Qy/^*wJ^r-inscription, 
line  29-31,  that  the  kings  brought  to  him  their  rich 
tribute.  The  kings  who  were  dethroned  were  not 
ordinarily  killed,  unless  they  aimed,  not  at  independ- 
ence, but  at  the  supreme  sovereignty.  Thus  Astyages, 
king  of  the  Medes  (or  Mandeans);  Crcesus,  king  of 
Lydia;  and  Nabunaid,  king  of  Babylon,  were  all  spared 
by  Cyrus';  and  according  to  Abydenus,  the  last  of 
these  was  given  the  government  of  Carmania. 

From  the  above,  it  will  be  clear  to  our  readers,  that 
Cyrus  may  have  had  a  king  of  Media,  or  a  Median 


»  Herodotus,  I,  74.  » Id.,  V,  118.  » Id.,  VII,  98. 

4  Id.,  VII,  98,  VIII,  87.  s  Id,,  XII,  100. 

6  Id.,  V,  104.  7  Id.,  V,  113.  8  Id.,  Ill,  15. 

9  Herodotus,  I,  130,  208;  Abu  Habba  Cylinder,  i,  32,  55;  Nabunaid- 
Cyrus  Chronicle,  obverse  Col.  ii,  2,  reverse  Col.  ii,  16. 


270  The  Book  of  Daniel 

king,  ruling  a  part  of  his  empire  under  him.  But  fur- 
ther, before  leaving  this  subject,  let  it  be  remembered, 
that  it  is  not  fair  to  accuse  the  Scriptures  of  making 
statements  about  the  Medes  having  conquered  Babylon ; 
whereas,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Persians  did  it.  For, 
it  is  evident,  that  the  subjects  and  neighbors  of  the  Per- 
sian government  both  looked  upon  the  Achasmenid  kings 
as  kings  of  the  Medes,  also,  and  addressed  them  as  such. 
For  example,  Herodotus  says  that  Tomyris,  queen  of  the 
Massagetae,  addressed  Cyrus  as  "king  of  the  Medes,"' 
and  the  two  Spartans  who  went  to  Susa  to  make 
satisfaction  for  the  death  of  the  Persian  heralds  who 
had  perished  at  Sparta,  addressed  the  king  as  *'King 
of  the  Medes.  "^  Moreover,  Xerxes,  as  we  have  shown 
above,  is  called  ''king  of  Persia  and  Media,"  "king  of 
Medo-Persia,  ^  etc.,  on  a  ntmiber  of  Babylonian  contract 
tablets.  Herodotus  and  Thucydides,  also,  represent 
the  Greeks  as  using  the  names  almost  indiscriminately 
for  the  allied  peoples  and  for  their  kings  as  well; 
and  both  the  monuments  of  the  Persian  kings  and  the 
classical  writers  place  the  Medes  in  a  position  little 
inferior  to  the  Persians  but  much  superior  to  any  other 
nation  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Achasmenids.  Both 
by  Cyrus  and  Darius  Hystaspis,  a  large  ntmiber  of 
Medes  as  well  as  Persians  were  entrusted  with  the 
highest  commands  in  the  empire;  while  but  a  few 
exceptional  cases  can  be  cited  where  a  man  of  any  other 
nation  received  an  appointment  to  a  high  command. 
So  that  the  old  designation  of  Medo-Persian  may  well 
be  employed  to  designate  the  kingdom  founded  by 
C^TUs;  though,  perhaps,  Perso-Median  would  be  better 
still.  If  then,  the  Medo-Persian  empire  was  one,  and 
succeeded  immediately  to  that  of  Babylon,  the  interpre- 
»I.,  205.  « Id.,  XII,  134-136.    I         3  Shar  Par-sa,  Mada, 


Other  Alleged  Confusions  271 

tation  of  Daniel  vii,  5,  6,  which  makes  the  bear  to  mean 
Media  and  the  Jeopard  Persia,  falls  to  the  groimd;  and 
so  also  does  the  interpretation  which  makes  the  four 
heads  of  the  leopard  refer  to  foiir  kings  of  Persia.  It 
follows  that  Daniel  vii,  6,  cannot  be  used  to  prove  that  in 
Daniel  xi,  2,  we  find  the  author  "attributing  to  the  Per- 
sian empire  only  four  kings, "  and  that  consequently  he 
must  have  confused  Darius  Hystaspis  and  his  son 
Xerxes  when  he  makes  the  f oiirth  king  stir  up  all  against 
the  realm  of  Greece. 

Dan.  xi,  2,  which  is  the  only  text  except  vii,  6,  which 
is  cited  by  Prof.  Comill  to  prove  this  confusion  of  the 
two  kings  reads  as  follows: 

And  now,  I  will  show  thee  the  truth.  Behold,  there 
shall  stand  up  yet  three  kings  in  Persia;  and  the  fourth 
shall  be  much  richer  than  they  all;  and  when  he  is  waxed 
strong  through  his  riches,  he  shall  stir  up  all  against  the 
realm  of  Greece. 

The  first  verse  of  this  chapter  says  that  this  vision 
was  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede.  Since,  as  we 
have  endeavored  to  show,  Darius  the  Mede  was  never 
an  independent  king,  but  was  merely  a  sub-king  under 
Cyrus,  it  seems  best  to  consider  Cambyses,  Smerdis  the 
Magian,  and  Darius  Hystaspis,  to  be  the  three  kings 
meant  by  the  author  of  this  verse.  The  fourth  would 
then  be  Xerxes;  though  it  may  possibly  be  Darius, 
if  we  coimt  Cyrus  as  the  first.  The  confusion,  how- 
ever, if  there  be  any,  is  with  us  and  not  with  the 
author.  That  is,  we  may  not  know  which  of  the  two 
he  meant;  but  this  does  not  prove  that  he  did  not 
know  which  of  the  two  he  meant.  Remember,  no 
names  are  given.  The  naming  of  the  kings  of  the  vision 
rests  with  the  interpreters  of  it.     It  is  not  necessary  to 


272  The  Book  of  Daniel 

maintain  that  the  prophets  were  themselves  able  clearly 
to  distinguish  the  persons  of  their  visions.  We  are  told 
by  Peter, '  that  the  prophets  searched  diligently  to  find 
out  what  the  visions  which  they  saw  might  mean. 
There  wotild  be  no  possible  objection,  therefore,  to 
this  verse,  even  if  it  were  indefinite  and  somewhat  con- 
fused, provided  that  we  could  only  recognize  that  it 
was  prediction;  and  not  try  to  force  it  to  be  an  account 
written  in  the  second  century  B.C. 

VIII.  But  eighthly,  it  is  said,  that  not  merely  did  the 
author  confuse  Xerxes  and  Darius  Hystaspis,  but  that 
this  confused  fourth  king  of  Persia  was  further  confused 
with  Darius  Codomannus,  the  fourteenth  and  last  king 
of  Persia,  who  was  overthrown  by  Alexander  the  Great.  ^ 
This  confusion  is  said  to  be  shown  by  Daniel  xi,  2, 
which  reads:  ''And  a  mighty  king  shall  stand  up,  that 
shall  rule  with  great  dominion  and  do  according  to  his 
will.**  Taken  in  connection  with  the  verse  preceding 
it,  we  admit  and  all  admit,  that  this  refers  to  Alexander 
of  Macedon.  But  we  fail  to  see  the  confusion.  The 
prophecy  might  have  been  more  explicit,  but  it  is  not 
confused.  It  does  not  say  when  this  mighty  king  should 
arise.  It  does  not  say  that  he  would  have  any  direct 
or  personal  relation  with  the  fourth  king  of  Persia; 
though  it  may  and,  we  think,  does  indicate  and  mean, 
that  the  great  king  would  be  instigated  to  his  course 
of  conduct  by  the  activities  of  the  fourth  king  against 
the  dominion  of  Greece.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Alex- 
ander the  Great  is  said  both  by  Arrian  and  Quintus 
Curtius  to  have  declared  that  he  undertook  his  expedi- 
tion against  Persia  in  order  to  avenge  the  earlier  assaults 
on  Greece  and  Macedon  made  by  Darius '  Hystaspis 
and  his  son  Xerxes,     And  who  can  or  would  do  other- 

*  I  Pet.  i,  10,  II.  '  See  p.  162. 


Other  Alleged  Confusions  273 

wise  in  thinking  of  the  two  great  expeditions,  than  to 
put  them  in  contrast  and  in  a  certain  juxtaposition  and 
relation  of  cause  and  effect  with  each  other  ?  Herodotus 
begins  his  great  history  by  an  attempt  to  show  what 
was  the  original  cause  of  the  enmity  between  the 
Greeks  and  the  Asiatics;  and  he  says  that  the  Persians 
ascribed  to  the  capture  of  Troy,  to  the  expedition  of  the 
Greeks  into  Asia  about  five  hundred  years  before  that 
of  Darius  Hystaspis  against  Greece,  the  commence- 
ment of  their  enmity  to  the  Greeks. ' 

But  even  if  there  were  a  confusion  of  these  kings 
of  Persia  in  the  statements  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  it 
must  be  evident  to  all,  that,  while  this  might  be 
looked  upon  as  a  reason  for  distrusting  these  state- 
ments, it  certainly  cannot  be  used  to  prove  that  the 
author  wrote  after  rather  than  before  the  history 
was  enacted.  We  object,  therefore,  to  the  bring- 
ing forward  of  this  claim  of  confusion  as  a  proof  of  the 
late  date  of  the  book.  And  we  object  especially  in  this 
charge  against  the  author  of  Daniel  that  he  confused  the 
composite  Darius  Hystaspis-Xerxes  with  Darius  Codo- 
mannus,  to  laying  stress  upon  an  interval  of  time 
between  the  cause  and  the  effect,  between  the  attack 
on  Greece  and  the  counter  attack  on  Persia;  inasmuch 
as  no  one  in  his  senses  would  think  of  charging  Herodo- 
tus with  confusion  because  he  skips  over  the  five  hun- 
dred years  between  the  attack  on  Priam's  citadel  and 
that  on  the  Acropolis,  or  of  charging  Alexander  the 
Great  with  confusion  or  ignorance,  because  he  declares 
his  attack  on  Darius  Codomannus  in  334  b.  c,  to  have 
been  an  act  of  vengeance  for  the  attacks  of  Darius 
Hystaspis  and  Xerxes  upon  Greece  and  Macedon  in 
the  wars  which  culminated  at  Marathon  and  Salamis. 

« See  Bk.  I,  1-5. 


274  The  Book  of  X)aniel 

IX.*  Ninthly,  and  lastly,  it  is  assumed,  that  the 
author  states  that  the  war  of  the  fourth  king  of  Persia 
against  Greece  ended  **in  a  triumphant  repulse  of  this 
attack  by  the  Greek  king  Alexander  the  Great"  and  in 
the  defeat  and  dethronement  of  the  fourth  king.  =" 

It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  this  assumption  to  repeat 
the  verse  upon  which  it  is  founded :  "A  mighty  king  shall 
stand  up  and  shall  rule  with  great  dominion  and  do 
according  to  his  will.  "^  Here,  is  no  mention  of  the 
defeat  and  dethronement  of  any  king,  let  alone  the 
fourth  king  of  Persia  alluded  to  in  the  preceding  verse. 
Here  is  no  mention  of  the  name  of  Alexander  of  Mace- 
don,  nor  of  his  having  repulsed  any  attack  nor  of  his 
being  a  great  king.  The  whole  verse  is  absolutely 
within  the  sphere  of  ordinary  predictive  prophecy,  and 
puts  one  in  mind  in  its  indefiniteness  of  the  verse  of 
Balaam:  ** There  shall  come  forth  a  star  out  of  Jacob* *^; 
and  of  the  verse  in  Jacob's  blessing:  **The  scepter  shall 
not  depart  from  Judah,"  etc.* 

Conclusion  "" 

In  the  discussions  of  the  last  five  chapters,  we  have 
attempted  to  show  that  the  author  of  Daniel  does  not 
attribute  to  the  Persian  empire  a  total  of  only  four 
kings;  that  it  is  scarcely  possible  that  the  author  of 
Daniel,  if  he  wrote  after  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  can  have  thought  that  this  empire  had  only  four 
kings;  that  it  is  not  proven  that  only  four  kings  of  Persia 
are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  outside  of  Daniel ; 
that  Darius  the  Mede  cannot  have  been  a  reflection  of 
Darius  Hystaspis;  that  the  author  of  Daniel  has  not 

'  See  p.  162.  a  Comill,  p.  385.  3  Dan.  xi,  3. 

4  Num.  xxiv,  17.  5  Gen.  xlix,  10. 


Other  Alleged  Confusions  275 

confused  Darius  Hystaspis  and  Xerxes  his  son;  that 
he  does  not  mistake  Darius  Hystaspis  for  Darius  Codo- 
mannus;  and  that  he  does  not  state  that  the  war  of  the 
fourth  king  of  Persia  against  Greece  was  repulsed  by 
Alexander  the  Great.  We  leave  the  reader  to  judge 
whether  we  have  s^ceeded  in  ouj"  attempt. 


d 


CHAPTER  XIV 

SUSA 

When  a  man  is  charged  with  having  with  his  own 
hand  committed  a  murder,  the  most  conclusive  defense 
is  to  prove  an  alihiy  that  is,  that  the  accused  was  not  at 
the  place  at  the  time  when  the  murder  was  committed. 
Similarly,  when  it  comes  to  historical  statements,  if  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  man  about  whom  the  statement 
is  made  did  not  live  at  the  time  or  that  he  could  not  have 
been  in  the  place  where  the  event  is  said  to  have  tran- 
spired, it  is  stiificiently  clear  that  the  statement  connect- 
ing him  directly  with  the  event  is  false.  Again,  if  an 
event  is  said  to  have  been  enacted  in  a  certain  building 
in  a  certain  city  at  a  certain  time  by  a  certain  person, 
the  statement  is  proved  false  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  person,  or  the  building,  or  the  city,  did  not  exist  at 
that  time;  or  that  if  it  did  exist,  its  condition  and 
circumstances  were  different  from  those  described  in  the 
record.  Further,  if  a  document  purports  to  have  been 
written  at  a  certain  time  by  a  certain  person  in  a  cer- 
tain language,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  disprove  its 
genuineness,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  person  did  not 
exist  at  that  time,  or  that  the  language  is  such  as  that 
the  document  could  not  have  been  written  at  that  time. 
Of  course,  this  last  statement  would  be  subject  to  the 
proviso  that  the  docimient  in  hand  was  not  a  later 
revision,  or  a  translation,  of  the  original. 

276 


Susa  277 

In  this  and  the  following  chapter  I  am  going  to  con- 
sider some  of  the  attacks  made  upon  the  genuineness  of 
the  book  of  Daniel  on  the  grotmd  that  it  contains 
anachronisms,  that  is,  that  it  contains  statements  which 
could  not  have  been  written  in  the  time  of  Cyrus. 

Objections  Stated 

**The  author  was  guilty  of  an  anachronism  in  mak- 
ing Shushan  (Susa)  subject  to  Babylon."^ 

Or,  as  Comill  says,  "Of  the  fact  of  Susa  also  having 
been  a  seat  of  the  Babylonian  court  there  may  be  a 
reminiscence  in  viii,  2."' 

Assumptions  Involved 

There  are  in  these  objections  two  asstmiptions:  i, 
that  in  the  time  of  Daniel,  Susa  was  not  subject  to 
Babylon;  2,  that  Daniel  viii,  2,  implies  the  anachro- 
nism that  Susa  was  in  Daniel's  time  a  seat  of  the  Baby- 
lonian court. 

Answer  to  Assumptions 

I.  (a)  As  to  the  first  assumption,  discoveries  made 
since  Bertholdt*s  time  would  indicate  that  Susa  was 
subject  to  Babylon  in  the  time  of  Daniel.  For  as 
Winckler  says  of  the  division  of  the  Assyrian  empire 
between  the  Babylonians  and  the  Medes:  "All  the 
country  to  the  north  of  the  river  region  from  Elam  to 
Asia  Minor  fell  to  the  Medes.*'  "Elam  itself  appears, 
as  in  the  earliest  times,  to  have  fallen  to  Babylonia. ''^ 

*  Bertholdt:  Daniel,  p.  34. 

•  Introduction  to  the  0.  T.,  p.  185. 

s  Winckler's  History  of  Babylon  and  Assyria^ .  Craig's  Translation, 
p.  384. 


278  The  Book  of  Daniel 

If  we  can  accept  the  translation  of  Mr.  Pinches,  the 
Cyrus  Cylinder  supports  this  view  of  Dr.  Winckler;  for 
according  to  this  translation,  the  city  of  Susa  was  one  of 
those  to  which  Cyrus  returned  its  gods  after  he  had 
captured  Babylon  and  had  received  the  homage  of  the 
nations,  that  had  up  to  that  time  been  subject  to  Baby- 
lon, in  Shu-anna  the  citadel  of  the  city  of  Babylon. ' 
The  province  of  Elam  spoken  of  in  viii,  2,  of  which  Susa 
was  the  capital  will  thus  appear  to  have  been  a  part  of 
Babylonia  during  the  period  of  the ;  Babylonian  mon- 
archy. 

(b)  But,  even  if  Susa  did  not  fall  to  Babylon  in  the 
division  of  the  Assyrian  empire,  we  must  remember 
that  it  is  possible  (i)  that  Daniel  was  there  in  vision 
merely,  or  (2)  that  he  may  have  gone  thither  on  private 
or  official  business.  In  favor  of  (i)  is  the  probable  mean- 
ing of  chapter  viii,  2,  which  reads:  **I  saw  in  the  vision; 
now  it  was  so,  that  when  I  saw,  I  was  in  Shushan  the 
palace,  which  is  in  the  province  of  Elam. "  In  favor  of 
(2)  is  the  fact  that  the  cities  of  Babylon  and  Susa  were 
separated  by  only  a  Httle  over  200  miles  and  that  for  at 
least  1500  years  the  two  cities  had  been  bound  together 
by  the  closest  political  and  commercial  relations.  Susa 
lay  on  the  direct  land  route  from  Babylon  to  India,  and 
Babylon  on  the  route  from  Susa  to  the  Mediterranean. 
So  that  there  may  have  been  many  reasons  of  a  public 
or  private  nature  why  a  man  of  Daniel's  position  may 
have  visited  Susa.  In  his  official  capacity  also  as  ruler 
"over  the  whole  province  of  Babylon,'*^  he  may  have 
been  investigating  the  methods  of  government  in  the 
province  of  Elam.  Or,  if  we  take  the  reading  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate,   " province'*  or  the  LXX  reading,  "affairs" 

^  See  Pinches:  The  0,  T.  in  the  Light  of  the  Hist.  Records,  etc.,  p.  422, 
and  K3.  iii,  ii,  126.  '  Dan.  ii,  48. 


Susa  279 

of  Babylonia  (a  reading  which  depends  merely  upon  a 
change  in  the  pointing  of  the  Hebrew  original),  Daniel 
may  have  had  oversight  at  this  time  of  the  governors 
of  all  the  provinces,  or  affairs,  of  the  empire.  Or, 
Daniel  may  have  been  transferred  from  the  government 
of  the  province  of  Babylon  to  that  of  Elam.  It  is 
altogether  probable,  that  as  Nabunaid,  the  son  of  Nabu- 
naid,  had  been  made  sub-king  of  Harran  in  the  extreme 
north  of  the  Babylonian  empire, '  so  also,  Belshazzar  had 
been  made  king  of  Accad,  Shimier,  Chaldea,  and  Elam 
in  the  south.  This  would  account  for  the  third  year 
of  Belshazzar  the  king  spoken  of  in  Daniel  viii,  i.  It 
was  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar  as  the  king  of  the 
Chaldeans. 

The  presimiptuousness  of  making  hasty  statements, 
unsupported  by  any  proper  evidence,  with  regard  to  the 
events  which  happened,  and  the  state  of  affairs  in  that 
distant  past  in  which  Daniel  lived,  cannot  be  better 
illustrated  than  in  the  assertions  which  Bertholdt 
made  in  the  introduction  to  his  commentary  on  Daniel, 
which  was  published  in  1806.    We  read: 

The  book  of  Daniel  contains  mistakes  which  it  would 
have  been  impossible  for  Daniel  to  compose  and  which 
can  be  explained  only  on  the  supposition  that  the  book 
was  written  long  after  the  occurrence  of  the  events  de- 
scribed. In  Chapter  8 :  1,2,  Daniel  says  of  himself :  "  In  the 
third  year  of  the  reign  of  Belshazzar  the  king,  I  found  my- 
self in  Shushan  the  palace,  in  the  province  of  Elam."  In 
the  27th  verse  he  says  that  he  had  royal  business  to  trans- 
act in  that  place.  In  these  words  lies  an  insoluble  difficulty, 
if  Daniel  has  written  them.  Elymais  never  belonged  to 
the  Chaldean  court  of  Babylon.  Later,  under  Cyrus, 
Daniel  may  indeed  have  come  into  this  land;  but  how 

»  See  Pognon:  Inscriptions  SSmitiques,  Part  I. 


28o  The  Book  of  Daniel 

could  he  already  much  earlier  have  had  to  transact  there  the 
business  of  king  Nabonned?  One  might  perhaps  say  that 
he  went  thither  as  an  ambassador  to  the  Persian  court. 
But  only  if  it  were  not  certain  that  the  kings  first  after 
Cyrus  made  it  their  winter  residence — that  Darius  Hystas- 
pis  first  caused  the  buildings  requisite  for  this  to  be  erected, 
that  thus  in  Nabonned's  time  there  did  not  exist  a  court  or  a 
royal  palace  {Burg)  in  the  chief  city  of  Elymais!  Clearly 
a  later  composer  betrays  himself  here  who  has  confused 
either  the  later  Persian  residence  city  Susa  with  Babylon, 
the  capital  of  the  Chaldean  kings,  or  indeed  Nabonned  with 
a  ruler  of  the  Persian  dynasty,  or  a  later  event  from  the  life 
of  Daniel  with  an  earlier.  ^ 

The  only  answer  needed  to  this  self-raised  difficulty  is 
found  in  Herodotus  III,  70,  where  we  read :  ^'  Darius,  the 
son  of  Hystaspis,  arnved  at  Susa  from  Persia,  where  his 
father  was  governor  {hy parch),**  From  which  we 
gather,  first,  that,  at  the  time  before  Darius  Hystaspis 
became  king,  Susa  existed ;  and  secondly,  that  it  was  not 
in  Persia  even  then,  but  in  Elam.  So  that  Bertholdt's 
great  insoluble  difficulty  was  all  in  his  own  mind! 

2.  The  assumption  that  Susa  was  in  Daniel's  time 
a  seat  of  the  Babylonian  court  is  based  upon  two  further 
assumptions:  (i)  that  Belshazzar  was  at  this  time  a 
Babylonian  king,  or  king  of  the  Babylonians,  and  (2) 
that  the  Hebrew  bira  here  means  "palace.'* 

( I )  As  to  the  first  of  these  assumptions,  it  is  sufficient 
to  remember  that  Belshazzar  is  never  called  a  Baby- 
lonian king.  In  Daniel  v,  30,  he  is  called '  *  the  Chaldean 
king,"  and  the  narrative  in  the  fifth  chapter  implies 
merely  that  he  was  for  a  short  time  in  some  sense  the 
king  of  Babylon.  Chapter  seven,  verse  one,  speaks 
of  his  first  year  as  king  of  Babylon.     All  the  statements 

»  See  Bertholdt,  Daniel,  pp.  34,  35. 


Susa  281 

with  regard  to  the  reign  of  Belshazzar  can  be  reconciled 
only  by  supposing  that  his  third  year,  spoken  of  in 
Daniel  viii,  i,  was  his  third  year  as  second  ruler  in  the 
kingdom,  or  as  a  sub-ruler  under  Nabunaid.  As 
the  Nabunaid-Cyrus  Chronicle  says,  that  a  son  of  the 
king,  i.  e.f  of  Nabunaid,  was  commander  of  the  army  in 
Accad,  and  as  it  is  generally  believed  that  this  son  was 
Belshazzar,  the  residence  of  Belshazzar  may  very  well 
have  been  at  Susa,  the  largest  city  next  to  Babylon  in 
the  southern  part  of  Nabimaid*s  dominions.  Daniel 
may  have  been  on  business  in  Susa,  either  by  commis- 
sion from  the  sovereign,  king  Nabunaid,  or  as  an  offi- 
cial under  Belshazzar.  The  court  of  Susa,  then,  if 
court  there  was,  would  have  been  not  the  Babylonian 
court  of  Nabimaid,  but  the  court  of  Belshazzar  the 
Chaldean.  That  the  years  of  a  sub-king  of  a  sub- 
kingdom  might  be  dated  otherwise  than  from  the  time 
of  the  accession  of  the  chief  ruler,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  the  years  of  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Israel 
and  Judah  are  reckoned  from  the  year  of  the  accession 
gf  the  subject  and  not  of  the  sovereign  king.  Some- 
times, the  year  of  the  reign  of  each  is  given,  as  in  Jere- 
miah XXV,  I.  And  again,  the  documents  of  Babylon 
imder  the  reigns  of  Shamashshumukin  et  al.,  although 
they  reigned  as  subordinates  to  the  kings  of  Assyria, 
were  dated  according  to  the  years  of  the  sub-kings 
and  not  after  the  years  of  the  overlord. 

(2)  It  is  an  assumption,  however,  that  a  court  is 
spoken  of  at  all  in  Daniel  viii,  2.  The  Hebrew  word 
Bira  is  certainly  a  loan  word  from  the  Assyrio-Baby- 
lonian,  where  it  does  not  mean  ** palace *'  but  "fortress,  '* 
and  is  a  synonym  for  halsu^  "fort,"  and  for  karashu, 
"  camp. "  It  is  more  probable,  therefore,  that  in  Daniel 
viii,  2,  the  phrase  is  to  be  rendered   "the  fortress  of 


282  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Susa,**  rather  than  "the  palace  of  Susa.*'  With  this 
translation,  the  assumption  that  there  is  any  reference 
to  a  court  falls  to  the  ground. 

Conclusion 

The  above  discussion  has  shown  that  the  statements 
of  the  book  of  Daniel  with  regard  to  Susa  are,  so  far 
as  is  known  to-day,  in  exact  harmony  with  the  facts 
revealed  on  the  monuments. 


CHAPTER   XV 
Nebuchadnezzar's  madness 

Was  Nebuchadnezzar  mad?  Can  he  have  had  such 
a  madness  as  is  described  in  the  book  of  Daniel?  Can 
he  have  been  mad  for  as  long  a  time  as  Daniel  says  he 
was?  And  may  his  kingdom  have  been  preserved 
for  him  during  the  time  that  he  was  ill?  Such  are  the 
main  questions  to  be  considered  in  the  present  chapter. 
Being  no  specialist  in  diseases  of  the  mind,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  cite  medical  authorities  in  answer  to  the 
question  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  madness  such  as  the 
author  of  Daniel  describes.  As  to  the  other  objections 
made  by  the  critics,  it  will  be  observed  that  in  lieu  of 
proof  they  have  recourse  to  the  old  phrases  ^'cannot" 
and  "no  proof  needed  to  show  incredibility. "  Those  of 
my  readers  who  think  that  the  bare  opinion  of  any  man 
is  sufficient  to  show  that  an  event  recorded  by  an  histo- 
rian is  impossible  or  incredible,  need  not  take  the  trouble 
of  reading  farther  than  the  objections  cited  below. 
Those  who  believe  that  proof  is  needed  will  find,  if  they 
read,  that  nothing  either  impossible  or  incredible  has 
been  recorded  by  the  author  of  Daniel  as  having  taken 
place.  It  will  be  further  observed  that  the  critics 
found  one  of  their  main  objections  upon  an  interpreta- 
tion of  one  of  the  terms  used  by  Daniel, — ^that  which  is 
translated  "times"  in  the  English  versions  of  Daniel 
iv,  25.     It  v/ill  be  shown  that  there  is  no  foundation  in 

283 


284  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  usage  of  language  for  the  critics'  interpretation  of 
this  word  as  meaning  ''years";  but  that  even  if  this 
were  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  this  place,  the  history 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  far  as  it  is  known  at  present,  does 
not  render  it  impossible  to  believe  that  he  may  have 
been  ill  for  seven  years. 

The  objections  as  made  by  the  critics  and  the  assump- 
tions involved  in  them  are  as  follows: 

Objections  Stated 

"Nebuchadnezzar's  madness  dining  seven  years 
cannot  be  taken  literally."^  To  which  I  add  from 
Professor  Comill  as  follows:  "No  proof  is  needed  to 
show  the  incredibility  attaching  to  the  supposed  incapa- 
city of  this  king  for  governing,  owing  to  madness,  for 
the  space  of  seven  years.  '*^ 

The  question  then  is,  can  Nebuchadnezzar  have  been 
mad  for  seven  years?  We  might  content  ourselves 
here  with  quoting  Dr.  Driver's  excellent  remark  with 
reference  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  madness  and  "some 
other  similar  considerations. " 

Our  knowledge  [says  he]  is  hardly  such  as  to  give  us 
an  objective  criterion  for  estimating  their  cogency.  The 
circumstances  alleged  will  appear  improbable  or  not  improb^ 
able  according  as  the  critic,  upon  independent  grounds,  has 
satisfied  himself  that  the  book  is  the  work  of  a  later  author, 
or  written  by  Daniel  himself.  It  would  be  hazardous 
to  use  the  statements  in  question  as  proof  of  the  late  date 
of  the  book;  though,  if  its  date  were  established  on  other 
grounds,  it  would  be  not  unnatural  to  regard  some  of  them 
as  involving  an  exaggeration  of  the  actual  fact.^ 

*  See  Jewish  Encyclopedia,  Art.  Daniel. 

'  See  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  385. 

3  See  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  500. 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Madness  285 

But,  for  the  sake  of  those  who  will  not  accept  Dr. 
Driver's  very  sensible  remarks  upon  this  subject,  it  may 
be  well  to  consider  the  following  assumptions  that  are 
involved  in  the  objections. 

Assumptions  Involved 

1.  It  is  assumed  that  no  man  can  have  suffered 
from  such  a  madness  as  that  attributed  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Daniel. 

2.  It  is  assimied  that  Nebuchadnezzar  cannot  have 
had  such  a  malady  for  seven  years. 

Answer  to  Assumptions 

In  this  chapter  we  shall  be  confronted  with  the 
same  kind  of  objections  and  assumptions  that  have 
been  considered  in  the  last.  Professor  Cornill  is  master 
of  all  the  arts  of  debate.  His  pages  on  Daniel  are  as 
full  of  the  words  "no  proof  is  needed,'*  * 'impossible," 
"incredible,"  as  an  illuminated  manuscript  of  gold 
letter  heads.  Several  times  on  a  single  page  is  the  word 
* '  impossible  "  employed  by  him  to  characterize  the  state- 
ments of  Daniel;  several  times,  the  phrase  "no  proof  is 
needed"  to  show  their  incredibility,  obscurity,  etc. 
It  seems  amazing  how  such  a  conglomeration  of  absurd- 
ities, such  a  congeries  of  impossibilities,  should  have 
befooled  both  Jew  and  Christian  alil<:e  for  2000  years 
or  more!  Why  could  not  their  learned  men  at  least 
have  seen  that  such  things  were  impossible?  And  if 
they  are  impossible,  and  if  no  proof  is  needed  to  show 
this  impossibility,  why  is  it  that  millions  to-day,  includ- 
ing some  who  have  every  right  to  claim  an  equality  with 
Professor   Cornill   and   his   coadjutors   in  knowledge, 


2%6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

wisdom,  and  grace,  should  still  believe  them  possible? 
Is  no  proof  needed  to  convince  Professor  Cornill's 
opponents?  Perhaps,  he  thinks,  they  are  not  worth 
trying  to  convince.  Then  why  did  he  write  his  book? 
Perhaps  he  thinks  that  the  majority  of  people  to-day 
will  accept  the  opinion  of  a  professor  as  they  used  to 
accept  that  of  an  emperor,  or  a  council.  And  most 
likely  the  majority  of  his  readers  will.  On  behalf, 
therefore,  of  this  majority  that  does  accept  opinion  as 
authority,  as  well  as  on  behalf  of  the  minority  who 
demand  proofs  and  are  willing  to  abide  by  the  evidence, 
I  appeal  from  the  critics'  opinion  to  the  documentary 
evidence.  The  writer  of  Daniel,  purporting  to  give 
contemporaneous  testimony,  says  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
king  of  Babylon  was  mad  during  a  space  of  seven  times. 
The  critics,  interpreting  the  word  for  "times"  as  mean- 
ing years,  say  this  is  impossible. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  question,  I  shall  consider — 
First,  whether  any  man  can  have  suffered  from  such  a 
madness  as  that  attributed  to  Nebuchadnezzar? 

It  would  be  madness  in  one  who  is  not  a  specialist  in 
diseases  of  the  mind  to  attempt  to  answer  this  question. 
After  consulting  with  some  of  the  most  eminent  special- 
ists in  the  line  of  so-called  insanity,  and  the  reading  of 
the  best  works  on  the  subject  that  could  be  fotmd  in  the 
libraries  of  Philadelphia,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  is  a  general  agreement  among  them  as  to  the 
possibility  of  such  a  disease,  or  form  of  insanity,  as  that 
with  which  Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  to  have  suffered. 
D.  H.  Tuke,  in  his  Dictionary  of  Psychological  Medicine, 
page  5,  says  that 

the  complete  loss  of  personal  identity,  and  the  conviction 
of  being  changed  into  one  of  the  lower  animals,  accom- 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Madness  287 

panied  frequently  by  a  corresponding  belief  on  the  part 
of  the  beholders,  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  facts  which 
the  psychological  history  of  the  race  reveals. 

In  the  article  on  Lycanthropy,  page  752  of  the  same 
dictionary,  he  cites  a  well-accredited  case  of  a  man  who 
imagined  himself  to  be  a  wolf,  and  attempted  to  act 
like  one,  as  late  as  1852  A.  D.  The  case  is  described  at 
length  by  the  sufferer's  physician,  a  French  specialist 
of  note  named  Morelle.  Dr.  Chapin,  who  was  till 
lately  at  the  head  of  the  Pennsylvania  Hospital  for  the 
Insane,  defines  insanity  as  a  "prolonged  change  of  a 
man's  ordinary  way  of  thinking  and  acting,  resulting 
from  disease."  Dr.  Chapin  says  that  the  best  article 
upon  the  insanity  of  Nebuchadnezzar  of  which  he  knows 
is  one  by  D.  R.  Burrell,  M.  D.,  of  Binghampton,  N.  Y., 
in  the  American  Journal  of  Insanity  for  April,  1894, 
pages  493-504.  In  this  article.  Dr.  Burrell  says  among 
other  things  of  interest  bearing  on  our  subject,  as  to 
which  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  volume  cited,  that  the 
fourth  chapter  of  Daniel  contains  "one  of  the  most 
beautiful  and  accurate  descriptions  of  the  premonition, 
the  onset,  the  course,  and  the  termination,  of  a  case  of 
insanity  that  is  recorded  in  any  language'* (p.  504)* 

Nothing  can  be  truer  to  nature  and  the  daily  mani- 
festations of  the  insane  than  the  account  of  the  recovery 
of  the  king;  the  coming  out  of  chaos,  or  self -absorption ; 
the  return  of  understanding;  and  then  a  heart  overflow- 
ing with  thankfulness  (Jd.,  p.  504). 

As  to  the  king's  eating  grass,  he  says:  "He  ate 
grass — ^in  imitation  of  the  animal  he  claimed  to  be — ^in 
imitation  only — as  those  now  who  think  they  are 
animals  eat  in  imitation  of  these  animals,  but  sub- 


288  The  Book  of  Daniel 

sist  upon  the  food  of  man.  '*  Dr.  Burrell  thinks,  also, 
that  the  treatment  afforded  to  the  king  was  the  best 
possible;  and  that  he  never  forgot,  during  the  long 
period  of  his  mental  confusion,  that  he  was  still  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, king  of  Babylon  {id.,  pp.  502-3). 

Resting  this  part  of  our  case,  then,  with  the  testi- 
mony of  these  noted  specialists,  we  proceed  to  the 
second  question,  as  to  whether  Nebuchadnezzar  can 
have  had  this  disease  for  seven  years.  The  medical 
experts,  as  we  have  seen  above,  raise  no  question  as  to 
the  possibility  of  a  man*s  suffering  from  this  form  of 
insanity  for  seven  years;  but  the  historical  critics 
have  raised  the  question  as  to  whether  the  monumental 
evidence  permits  us  to  believe  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
can  for  seven  years  have  been  incapacitated  from 
directing  the  affairs  of  state.  Before  entering  upon  the 
discussion  of  this  subject  from  the  historical  point  of 
view,  we  want  to  express  our  dissent  from  the  statement 
made  by  Dr.  Burrell  in  his  article  on  *'The  Insane  Kings 
of  the  Bible,'*  cited  above,  to  the  effect  that  "the  king 
may  have  thought  he  was  an  ox,  but  may  have  been  per- 
fectly sane  on  other  matters."  While  we  would  not 
dogmatically  deny  that  an  interpretation  of  the  Aramaic 
imperfect  forms  of  the  verbs  found  in  verses  31  and 
33  as  frequentatives  rather  than  inceptives,  might  allow 
of  this  view;  nevertheless  we  are  decidedly  of  the  opinion 
that  the  translation  of  the  English  versions  is  correct, 
and  that  the  writer  meant  us  to  understand  that  Ne- 
buchadnezzar had  not  merely  a  monomania,  or  craze 
on  one  point,  but  that  he  was  rendered  completely 
incapable  of  conducting  the  government.  What  other 
sense  can  be  put  upon  the  words,  '^The  kingdom  is 
departed  from  thee"? 

With  regard  to  this  question,  then,  it  maybe  said: 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Madness  289 

(i)  That  the  translation  "seven  years"  is  possible, 
but  not  necessarily  correct.  The  word  rendered  *  *  years  *  * 
is  not  the  ordinary  word  for  year  (shana),  but  a  word 
which  means  merely  a  fixed  or  appointed  time  {Hddan 
or  'adan).  It  seems  to  be  a  word  of  Babylonian  origin, 
meaning  "fixed  time,"  and  is  equivalent  often  to  the 
Greek  kairos.  In  R.  C.  Thompson *s  Reports  of  the 
Magicians  and  Astrologers  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 
nimiber  251 ,  Rev.  3-6,  we  read,  "let  not  the  king  go  into 
the  street  on  an  evil  day,  imtil  the  time  {*adan)  of  the 
omen  has  passed.  The  omen  of  a  star  lasts  for  a  full 
month.  "^ 

To  be  sure,  the  old  version  of  the  Seventy  renders  this 
passage  by  "seven  years";  but  the  version  of  Theodo- 
tion  has  "  seven  seasons  "  {kairoi),  the  Latin  Vulgate  has 
tempora,  and  the  Arabic  has  "times"  {'azminatin). 

But  even  if  it  be  insisted  upon  that  it  should  here  be 
interpreted  as  meaning  "seven  years,"  why  can  it  not 
be  taken  literally?  The  only  sources  of  information  as 
to  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  which  we  possess  out- 
side the  Scriptures,  are  some  contract  tablets,  some 
building  inscriptions,  one  historical  inscription,  and  six 
or  more  sources  belonging  to  profane  history,  all  of  these 
last  sources  coming  to  us  at  second  hand.  Thus,  Jose- 
phus  cites  (i)  "  the  archives  of  the  Phenicians  "  as  saying 
concerning  Nebuchadnezzar  that  he  conquered  all 
Syria  and  Phenicia  and  began  the  siege  of  Tyre  in  his 
seventh  year  and  continued  the  siege  for  thirteen  years; 
(2)  Philostratus,  as  mentioning  in  his  history  the  siege 
of  Tyre  for  thirteen  years;  (3)  Megasthenes,  as  pretend- 
ing to  prove  in  the  fourth  book  of  his  Indian  History 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  was    superior    to  Hercules  in 

«  "Shami  a-na  su-u-ku  la  us-sa-a  (4)  adi  a-dan-shu  sha  it-ti  (5)  it- 
ti-ku  (6)  it-it  sha  kakkab  a-di  arah  uine." 
«9 


2go  The  Book  of  Daniel 

strength  and  the  greatness  of  his  exploits,  and  as  saying 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  conquered  a  great  part  of  Libya, 
and  Iberia  also;  and  (4)  Diodes,  as  merely  mentioning 
Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  second  book  of  his  Accounts 
of  Persia,  To  these  may  be  added  (5)  the  accounts 
which  Josephus  has  taken  from  Berosus,  and  (6)  those 
which  Eusebius  has  taken  from  Abydenus.  These 
last  two  both  refer  to  the  illness  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but 
give  us  no  note  of  time  (none  at  least  as  to  the  length  of 
the  illness)  though  they  do  imply  that  it  occurred  near 
the  end  of  his  reign. 

The  contract  tablets  give  us  no  facts  as  to  the  private 
or  public  life  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  except  to  imply  that 
the  regular  machinery  of  government  at  Babylon  ran 
on  uninterruptedly  throughout  his  reign.  This  impli- 
cation is  gathered,  however,  from  the  fact  that  the 
tablets  are  dated  continuously  throughout  every  one  of 
the  43  years  of  his  reign,  from  604  to  561  B.C.,  and  not 
from  any  direct  allusions  to  the  political  events  of  the 
time. 

According  to  Langdon,  there  is  but  one  of  the  building 
inscriptions  that  should  be  put  between  593  and  580 
B.C.,  and  only  three  between  580  and  561.  The  one 
historical  inscription  which  we  possess  records  the 
invasion  of  Egypt  in  the  37th  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
that  is,  in  567  B.C.  Before  the  expedition  to  Egypt 
took  place,  Nebuchadnezzar  may,  for  all  we  know 
from  the  monuments  and  other  sources,  have  been 
incapacitated  for  seven  years  through  insanity.  It 
might  be  well  to  note,  also,  that  in  an  addition  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  fourth  chap- 
ter of  Daniel,  it  is  said  that  the  dream  occurred  in  the 
i8th  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  that  is,  in  586  or  587 
B.C.     As   the    insanity  is  said  to  have  commenced  a 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Madness  291 

year  later  (Dan.  iv,  29),  this  would  make  the  disease 
to  have  extended  from  586  (5)  to  580  or  579  B.C.  No 
known  objection  can  be  made  to  these  dates. 

It  is  marvelous  how  much  Bertholdt  and  others  have 
made  out  of  the  fact  that  Berosus  does  not  expressly 
and  precisely  mention  the  madness  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
In  the  excerpts  from  Berosus  which  have  been  preserved 
for  us  in  Josephus  and  Eusebius,  it  is  said  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar *  *  having  fallen  into  weakness  died.  *'  While 
we  would  not  argue  from  this  phrase,  as  Hengsten- 
berg  did,  that  Berosus  thus,  euphemistically  as  it  were, 
refers  to  the  madness  of  Nebuchadnezzar;  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  absurd  to  assert  that,  inasmuch  as 
Berosus,  in  the  few  words  concerning  Nebuchadnezzar 
which  have  come  down  to  us,  does  not  state  expressly 
that  Nebuchadnezzar  had  been  mad,  that  therefore 
he  never  was  mad.  Even  if  it  were  true,  as  Bertholdt 
asserts,  that  Berosus  knew  nothing  of  his  madness,  this 
would  not  prove  that  he  had  not  been  mad.  For  it  is 
almost  certain  that  the  Babylonian  sources  from  which 
Berosus  derived  his  information  would  contain  nothing 
about  this  great  calamity.  People  never  have  on  their 
monuments,  and  very  few  in  their  records  or  autobi- 
ographies, the  records  of  their  vices,  crimes,  or  weak- 
nesses. De  Quincey  and  Rousseau,  each  for  a  reason 
best  known  to  himself,  portrays  in  fine  literary  style 
what  most  men  would  conceal,  even  if  true.  Cowper,  in 
order  to  exalt  the  greatness  and  goodness  of  God,  refers 
in  one  of  his  poems  to  his  madness,  just  as  Nebuchadnez- 
zar is  said  to  have  done  to  his.  But  the  weaknesses 
of  our  friends  and  of  great  men  are  mostly  interred  with 
their  bones,  and  we  speak  no  ill  of  the  dead.  One 
would  search  in  vain  for  a  tombstone  recording  that  the 
inmate  of  the  sepulcher  had  been  for  seven  times 


292  The  Book  of  Daniel 

(years  or  months)  in  an  insane  asylum.  Berosus,  writ- 
ing a  history  of  his  own  country — for  according  to 
Josephus  "he  was  by  birth  a  Chaldean'* — ^would 
naturally  want  to  soften  down  the  character  of  the 
calamity  which  had  befallen  the  greatest  of  the  Chal- 
dean kings.  His  negative  testimony,  therefore,  must  be 
discounted,  and,  in  an  euphemistic  manner  of  speech, 
his  phrase  ** having  fallen  into  a  weakness"  may  well 
have  referred  to  his  madness. 
But  says  Bertholdt  again, 

is  it  credible  that  without  any  scruple,  or  any  fear  of  a 
relapse,  such  as  according  to  common  experience  in  dis- 
eases of  this  kind  most  frequently  occurs,  they  would 
have  entrusted  to  the  hands  of  a  man  that  had  for  many 
years  been  bereft  of  his  reason  the  reins  of  government,  and 
therewith  the  lives  of  many  millions  of  persons?  .  .  . 

If  Nebuchadnezzar  became  crazy  through  discontent 
(Unmuth)  and  distraction,  what  wonder  that  he  did  not 
commit  suicide!^ 

The  first  assumption  here  is  that  the  word  for  time 
must  mean  year;  but  we  have  seen  above  that  it  means 
simply  a  fixed  time,  and  that  in  Assyrian  it  is  defined 
in  one  case  at  least  as  meaning  a  month.  It  is  to  be 
said  also,  that,  as  Calvin  says,  their  opinion  is  probable 
who  think  that  the  number  sa^en  is  indefinite,  i.  e.,  until 
a  long  time  had  passed. 

The  second  assumption  is  that  insane  persons  are 
wont  to  commit  suicide;  whereas,  as  everyone  knows 
from  his  own  knowledge  of  the  insane,  but  a  very  small 
proportion  of  them  desire  to  commit  suicide. 

The  third  asstunption  is  that  the  government  may 

*  Comm.  on  Dan.,  pp.  301-302. 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Madness  293 

not  have  been  carried  on  for  him  during  his  period  of 
insanity.  According  to  verse  36  (33  in  the  Aramaic) 
his  coimselors  and  lords  began  to  consult  him  again,  as 
soon  as  his  reason  began  to  return.  This  implies 
that  they  had  conducted  the  government  without 
consulting  him,  so  long  as  he  was  incapacitated  by  his 
disease. 

The  fourth  assumption  is  that  an  insane  person  would 
necessarily  be  deposed.  Such  a  deposition  has  hap- 
pened at  times  in  the  history  of  the  worid,  that  is  true; 
and  even  a  violent  deposition  resulting  in  the  death  of 
the  ruler,  as  in  the  case  of  Paul  of  Russia.  But  how 
about  the  Caesars,  and  George  III  of  England,  and 
King  Louis  of  Bavaria,  not  to  mention  a  dozen  or  more 
others  who  may  most  charitably  and  reasonably  be 
adjudged  to  have  been  insane,  and  that  not  in  an 
innocuous  sense,  but  violently  and  outrageously  and 
homicidally  insane?  May  not  a  regency  have  been 
deemed  preferable  to  an  Evil-Merodach,  or  to  possible 
anarchy? 

The  fifth  assumption  is  that  an  insane  person  would 
be  looked  upon  and  treated  in  ancient  Babylon  as  such 
an  one  might  possibly  be  treated  in  modern  Europe. 
But  we  must  remember  that  in  antiquity  a  king  was 
often  looked  upon  as  a  god  and  insanity  as  possession  by 
a  god. 

We  must  not  be  surprised  [says  Eusebius]  if  the  Greek 
historians,  or  the  Chaldeans,  conceal  the  disease,  and 
relate  that  he  was  inspired,  and  call  his  madness,  or  the 
demon  by  which  he  was  possessed,  a  god.  For  it  is  the 
custom  to  attribute  such  things  to  a  god,  and  to  call  demons 
gods.^ 

»  Chron.  Arm.,  p.  6i. 


294  The  Book  of  Daniel 

In  accordance  with  this  belief  we  can  understand  why 
Abydenus  relates  that  the  Chaldeans  said  that  Nebu- 
chadnezzar having  ascended  to  the  roof  of  his  palace 
became  inspired  by  some  god.  But  not  only  insane 
kings,  but  all  kings,  were  considered  in  many  countries 
to  be  divine.  So  it  was  with  the  kings  of  Egypt.  So, 
also,  with  the  Seleucid  kings  of  Babylon.  Because  of 
these  beliefs,  probably,  the  subjects  of  Cambyses  so 
long  endured  his  raging  manias. 

The  sixth  assimiption  is  that  he  would  not  be  per- 
mitted to  resume  his  royal  functions  and  glory,  if  at 
any  time  his  normal  sanity  were  restored.  We  would 
like  to  know  who  would  have,  or  could  have,  attempted 
to  prevent  him  from  resuming  his  power.  To  maintain 
that  he  would  have  been  thus  prevented,  we  must 
assume  that  he  was  hated  or  feared  by  his  subjects 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  have  caused  them  to  rebel 
against  his  authority.  Why  then  would  they  not  have 
rebelled  and  killed  him  like  a  mad  dog  while  he  was 
still  insane?  Having  spared  him  while  helpless,  we 
judge  that  they  would  not  resist  him  after  his  reason 
had  retiimed.  Nor  do  we  judge  that  then  any  more 
than  now,  the  physicians  can  have  been  positively  cer- 
tain that  one  attack  of  insanity  would  inevitably  be 
followed  by  another.  Of  one  thing  at  least  we  may  be 
certain,  that  no  physician  of  that  day  would  have 
thought  of  advising  that  Nebuchadnezzar  shotild  be  ex- 
cluded from  taking  up  again  the  reins  of  government. 
If  one  had  so  advised,  it  is  probable  that  he  would  have 
been  hanged  higher  than  Haman! 

Conclusion 

From  the  above  discussion  it  is  evident  that  the 
madness  of  Nebuchadnezzar  may  be  taken  literally; 


Nebuchadnezzar's  Madness  295 

that  he  may  have  been  mad  for  seven  years,  or  times; 
and  that  proof  is  needed  to  show  the  incredibiHty 
alleged  as  attaching  to  his  supposed  incapacity  for 
governing. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

WERE  THE  EDICTS  OF  THE  KINGS  IMPOSSIBLE? 

One  of  the  commonest  tricks  in  all  kinds  of  discussion 
is  to  assert  that  the  view  of  your  opponent  is  impossible 
(unmdglich)j  and  that  your  own  is  self-evident  {selhst 
verstdtidlich).  How  frequently  has  the  word  impossi- 
ble been  used  to  silence  the  questionings  and  incredulity 
of  the  hearer?  And  yet,  what  is  impossible?  Why 
even  should  it  be  thought  a  thing  impossible  with  God 
that  he  should  raise  the  dead?  Are  not  all  things 
possible  with  him,  except  to  deny  himself,  to  do  some- 
thing contrary  to  his  nature?  At  least,  is  it  not  fair  to 
demand,  whenever  anyone  says  that  a  thing  is  self- 
evident  or  impossible,  why  he  thinks  it  is  thus  or  so? 
A  few  years  ago  even  scientists  of  note  deemed  airships 
impossible.  To-day  they  exist.  Let  us  then  be  no 
longer  silenced  by  these  imposing  words,  by  whomso- 
ever used.  They  mean  no  more,  at  most,  than  that 
to  him  who  uses  them  a  thing  seems  to  be  self-evident  or 
impossible.  In  all  such  cases  let  us  consider  it  proper 
to  ask:  Why  is  it  deemed  impossible?  Why  does  it 
seem  to  be  self-evident?  For  few  truths  are  self-evi- 
dent. No  historical  facts  are  ever  self-evident.  But 
every  event  that  has  been  recorded  as  having  transpired 
is  evidenced  by  the  document  that  records  it.  There 
may  be  but  one  documentary  v/itness  to  testify  that  the 

296 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  297 

given  event  occurred,  but  this  in  itself  does  not  neces- 
sarily make  it  improbable,  and  certainly  not  impossible 
of  occtnrence.  Two  witnesses  would  make  the  event 
more  probable;  three  or  four,  more  probable  still.  No 
number  of  witnesses  would  render  an  event  so  certain 
as  to  remove  all  doubt  as  to  its  having  taken  place;  but 
in  ordinary  cases,  "out  of  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  wit- 
nesses shall  every  word  be  established. " 

Certain,  also,  is  it  that  no  event  that  has  been  re- 
corded can  be  rejected  as  impossible,  simply  because 
there  is  but  one  witness  to  the  fact  of  its  occurrence.  A 
thing  may  have  happened  even  if  there  were  no  record 
of  it.  Countless  things,  indeed,  have  happened  of 
which  no  record  at  all  exists.  Even  the  events  of  a 
novel  like  **She'*  may  have  transpired.  The  ingenuity 
with  which  the  author  keeps  within  the  sphere  of  the 
possible,  while  transgressing  the  radius  of  the  probable, 
is  what  carries  the  reader  spellbound  to  the  catastrophe 
at  the  bitter  end. 

After  these  preliminary  remarks  on  the  unreasonable- 
ness of  rejecting  a  recorded  fact  simply  because  it  seems 
to  someone  to  be  impossible,  it  might  be  considered 
needless  for  us  to  discuss  the  assertion  that  it  is  impossi- 
ble that  the  edicts  of  the  kings  recorded  in  Daniel  were 
ever  issued.  But  inasmuch  as  this  accusation  has  been 
made  by  one  of  great  influence  and  of  great  scholarship 
and  high  position,  let  us  waive  all  preconceived  opinion 
and  proceed  in  the  usual  manner  to  the  discussion. 

Objections  Stated 

No  proof  [says  Professor  Comill]  is  needed  to  show 
the  impossible  character  of  the  edicts  ascribed  in  chapters 
iii    and    iv    to    Nebuchadnezzar  and    in    chapter    vi   to 


298  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Darius,  and  the  absurdity  of  the  wish  attributed  to  Nebu- 
chadnezzar in  chapter  ii. ' 

The  reader  will  recall  that  the  first  of  these  edicts, 
that  of  the  second  chapter,  was  that  the  wise  men  of 
Babylon  should  be  killed,  inasmuch  as  they  cotdd  not 
discern  and  interpret  the  dream  which  the  king  had 
concealed  or  forgotten.  The  decrees  in  the  third  chap- 
ter were  that  all  who  refused  to  bow  down  to  the  image 
which  had  been  set  up  should  be  cast  into  the  midst  of  a 
burning  fiery  furnace,  and  that  every  people,  nation, 
and  language,  "which  speak  anything  amiss  against 
the  God  of  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego,  shall  be 
cut  in  pieces,"  etc.  (v.  29).  The  decree  of  the  fourth 
chapter  is  a  general  decree  covering  the  whole  chapter 
and  directing  the  nation  to  praise  God  because  of  the 
signs  and  wonders  he  had  wrought.  The  decrees  of 
Darius  in  the  sixth  chapter  were  the  one  in  which  any- 
one praying  to  any  god  but  himself  for  thirty  days 
should  be  cast  into  a  den  of  lions,  and  the  one  wherein  he 
exalts  the  God  who  had  delivered  Daniel  from  the  den 
of  lions  (v.  25-27).  We  have  here  six  decrees,  the  three 
exalting  God  (iii,  29,  iv,  and  vi,  25-27),  and  the  three 
concerning  the  killing  of  the  wise  men,  concerning  the 
fiery  furnace,  and  concerning  the  den  of  lions. 

Assumption  Involved 

The  great  assumption  here  is  that  no  proof  is  needed 
to  show  that  these  edicts  or  decrees  are  impossible. 

Answer  to  Assumption 

There  are  four  kinds  of  impossibility  which  ought 
here  to  be  considered:  For  these  decrees  might  involve 
«  See  Introduction  to  the  0.  T.,  p.  385. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  299 

(i)  a  moral  impossibility  based  on  what  we  know  of  the 
character  or  knowledge  of  kings  and  potentates  in 
general  or  of  these  kings  in  particular;  or  (2),  a  legal 
impossibility  derived  from  what  is  known  of  the  laws 
of  Babylon  and  Persia;  or  (3),  a  physical  impossibility 
based  on  the  difficulty  of  carrying  out  such  decrees; 
or  (4),  an  historical  impossibility,  arising  from  the  fact 
that  there  is  conclusive  evidence  that  such  decrees 
cannot  have  been  made. 

I.  As  to  any  one  of  the  decrees  presenting  a  moral 
impossibility,  it  certainly  cannot  be  asserted  that  such 
decrees  are  not  paralleled  by  many  similar  cases  in  the 
history  of  mankind.  It  does  not  prove  that  a  decree  is 
impossible  to  assert,  or  even  to  prove,  that  it  is  absurd 
or  senseless  (unsinnig)  as  Von  Lengerke  declares  the 
edict  of  Nebuchadnezzar  with  regard  to  the  wise  men 
to  be.  Tyrants  have  always  suffered  from  the  disease 
which  has  been  fitly  named  megalomania.  Froude  and 
others  have  put  forth  the  view  that  almost  all  of  the 
so-called  Caesars  after  Augustus  were  afflicted  with 
this  form  of  insanity.  Monarchs  and  autocrats  are 
most  likely  to  suffer  from  attacks  of  this  complaint, 
whether  from  fear  of  losing  their  power  or  their  lives, 
or  from  the  supposed  necessity  of  upholding  their 
authority  or  dignity.  It  must  be  admitted,  also,  that 
persecutions  have  arisen  from  the  conscientious  belief 
that  the  opinions  of  a  world-ruler,  whose  right  is  claimed 
to  be  divine,  must  and  ought  to  be  imposed  upon  the 
governed.  The  Roman  emperors  from  Nero  to  Galer- 
ius  persecuted  their  Christian  subjects  with  edicts 
and  ptmishments  akin  in  purpose,  cruelty,  and  severity, 
to  those  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Darius  recorded  in 
Daniel  iii,  iv,  and  vi.  Indeed,  the  edicts  are  so 
similar  that  one  might  well  believe  that  the  emperors 


300  The  Book  of  Daniel 

had  copied  and  emulated  the  prototypes  of  Daniel. 
The  decrees  of  the  emperors  demanded  that  all  their 
subjects  should  burn  incense  before  the  statues  of  the 
Caesars.  Refusal  to  do  so  was  followed  by  confiscation 
of  property  and  death  of  the  obstreperous.''  Under 
Marcus  Aurelius,  the  best  of  the  heathen  emperors, 
the  aged  bishop  Poly  carp  "was  burned  at  the  stake 
because  he  would  not  consent  to  curse  that  Lord  whom 
for  86  years  he  had  served";  "Blandina,  a  delicate  fe- 
male slave,  was  scourged  in  the  most  dreadful  manner, 
roasted  on  a  red-hot  iron  chair,  thrown  to  the  wild 
beasts,  and  then  executed*';  "the  dead  bodies  of  the 
Christians  lay  in  heaps  on  the  streets.  **  Under  Sep- 
timius  Severus,  Perpetua  was  condemned  to  be  gored 
by  a  wild  cow.  Under  Decius,  one  of  the  ablest  of  the 
Roman  Caesars,  "every  conceivable  means — confisca- 
tion, banishment,  exquisite  torture,  and  death — ^was 
employed  to  induce  Christians  to  apostatize."  Now, 
we  can  only  explain  the  fact  that  such  noble  and  great 
men,  as  many  of  these  emperors  certainly  were,  resorted 
to  such  terrible  and  terrifying  measures  to  secure  the 
extinction  of  Christianity  and  the  unity  of  worship 
which  was  involved  in  the  burning  of  incense  to  the 
statues  of  the  Caesars,  on  the  supposition  that  they 
really  believed  that  the  safety  of  the  state  for  whose 
welfare  they  were  responsible  was  endangered  by  what 
to  them  appeared  to  be  a  godless  and  abominable  sect. 
It  is  not  fair  to  call  these  persecutions  of  the  early 
Christians  senseless  (unsinnig)  from  the  point  of  viev/ 
of  the  emperors,  with  their  idea  of  what  the  state  was, 

*  Galerlus  proposed  that  everyone  refusing  to  offer  sacrifice  should 
be  burnt  alive.  Diocletian  denounced  punishment  of  death  against  all 
holding  secret  assemblies  for  religious  worship.  See  Gibbon's  Decline 
and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ii,  63,  64. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  301 

and  of  how  it  was  imperiled  by  the  followers  of  the 
despised  Jew  of  Nazareth. 

Another  parallel  to  the  persecution  of  the  Christians 
by  the  Roman  emperors  may  be  found  in  the  intoler- 
ance of  heresy  by  the  Roman  hierarchy.  It  is  well  for 
those  who  protest  against  the  claims  of  the  pope  of 
Rome  to  be  the  vicar  of  Christ  to  remember  that  he  has 
made  himself  responsible  for  all  of  the  cruel  acts  of 
the  Inquisition;  and  that  the  policy  and  deeds  of 
the  Inquisition,  the  persecution  of  the  Waldenses,  the 
suppression  of  the  Albigenses,  the  massacre  of  St. 
Bartholomew,  the  destruction  of  Jews,  Moriscoes,  and 
heretics  in  Spain,  and  all  similar  methods  of  punishing 
unbelievers,  are  still  upheld  by  the  Roman  hierarchy  as 
justifiable  on  the  groimd  of  their  divine  right  and  obli- 
gation to  suppress  heresy  in  every  form.  Prof.  Mari- 
anus.  de  Luca,  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  has  recently 
published  a  work  entitled  Institutions  of  Public  Ecclesi- 
astical Law,^  The  work  was  highly  commended  by 
Leo  XIII  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Professor  de  Luca 
and  published  on  the  covers  of  the  volumes.  In  this 
work,  the  author  maintains  that  it  is  still  a  Catholic 
tenet  "that  the  church  may  justly  inflict  on  heretics 
the  penalty  of  death, "  and  he  endeavors  to  justify  this 
tenet  by  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  to  the  Fathers,  to 
the  councils,  to  the  idea  and  practice  of  the  church, 
and  to  reason  itself.  ^ 

In  view,  then,  of  these  two  great  outstanding  exam- 
ples of  religious  intolerance  based  upon  fundamental 
principles  of  political,  or  ecclesiastical,  government,  we 
are  convinced  that  the  decrees  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and 

»  Institutiones  Juris  Ecclesiastici  Puhlici,  Neo-Eborici,  1901. 
"  See  for  a  discussion  of  this  work,  Prof.  C.  H.  H.  Wright's  Daniel 
and  the  Critics,  Appendix  III. 


302  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Darius  (Daniel  iii,  iv,  and  vi)  were  neither  senseless 
nor  irrational  from  their  point  of  view,  nor  from  that  of 
most  of  their  subjects.  Cannot  anyone  see  in  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, when  he  forbids  on  penalty  of  death  that 
anyone  shall  worship  any  other  god  than  the  image 
which  he  has  set  up,  a  prototype  of  Henry  VIII  of 
England,  or  Philip  II  of  Spain, '  or  Louis  XIV  of  France?' 
No  one  can  read  the  history  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria 
without  seeing  how  intimately  the  rise  and  fall  of 
nations  were  bound  up  with  the  rise  and  fall  of  the 
gods  which  the  people  worshiped.  ''Where, "  says 
Sennacherib,  **are  the  gods  of  Hena  and  Ivah?"  "and 
shall  the  god  in  whom  thou  trustest  deliver  thee?" 
The  prayers  and  records  of  all  the  Assyrian  and  Baby- 
lonian and  Persian  kings  show  clearly  their  belief  that 
their  power  and  prosperity  were  due  to  the  favor  of  the 
gods  they  worshiped.  Let  one  read,  for  example;  the 
inscriptions  of  Ashurbanipal,  Nebuchadnezzar,  and 
Darius  Hystaspis,  and  he  will  be  convinced  that  they 
one  and  all  attributed  their  elevation,  their  success,  the 
continuance  of  their  life  and  reign,  and  the  failure 
or  endurance  of  their  prosperity  and  kingdom,  to  the 
favor  or  disfavor  of  their  gods.  When,  then,  a  man 
flouted  at  the  image  of  their  god,  or  refused  to  worship 
as  the  king  decreed,  it  was  rebellion  against  the  consti- 
tuted authority  in  church  and  state;  and  the  rebellion 
must  be  suppressed  instantly,  and  in  such  a  manner  as 
to  inspire  terror  in  all  other  possible  offenders.  Granted 
the  views  of  autocracy  and  of  the  relation  of  the  gods 

«  According  to  the  decree  of  Philip  II,  any  Morisco  found  within  ten 
miles  of  Granada,  if  above  seventeen  years  of  age,  was  to  incur  the 
penalty  of  death  (Prescott:  Philip  the  Second,  iii,  265). 

»  At  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  the  pastors  were  hanged 
or  burned  (Guizot:  History  of  France,  iv,  338). 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  303 

to  that  autocracy  which  prevailed  all  through  the 
ancient  world,  there  was  nothing  else  for  Nebuchadnez- 
zar nor  for  Darius  the  Mede  to  do,  but  to  proceed  to 
execute  summarily  the  penalty  affixed  to  the  transgres- 
sion of  their  decrees.  As  to  their  decrees,  they  were 
perfectly  in  harmony  with  the  views  of  the  gods  and  of 
government  which  existed  among  men  at  the  times  in 
which  they  lived. 

As  to  the  character  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  we  know 
from  2  Kings  xxv,  7,  that  he  slew  the  sons  of  the  captive 
Zedekiah,  king  of  Judah,  before  his  eyes  and  then  put 
out  the  eyes  of  Zedekiah  himself  and  bound  him  with 
fetters  of  brass  and  carried  him  to  Babylon;  and  that 
afterwards  he  slew  Seraiah  the  chief  priest  and  Zephan- 
iah  the  second  priest,  and  about  seventy  other  important 
persons  at  Riblah  in  the  land  of  Hamath.  Jeremiah 
adds  (chapter  lii)  that  he  kept  Zedekiah  in  prison  to 
the  day  of  his  death  and  that  he  slew  all  the  princes 
of  Judah.  Besides,  he  kept  Jehoiachin  in  prison  for 
thirty-seven  years,  he  being  freed  only  after  Nebu- 
chadnezzar's death  by  his  successor  Evil-Merodach. 

The  building  inscriptions  of  Nebuchadnezzar  throw 
much  light  on  his  character.  Those  who  wish  to  read 
the  whole  of  these  we  refer  to  Mr.  Stephen  Langdon's 
work  entitled  The  Building  Inscriptions  of  the  Neo- 
Babylonian  Empire,  They  will  there  find  that  he  was  a 
most  devoted  worshiper  of  the  heathen  gods,  espe- 
cially of  Marduk  and  Nebo.  He  expended  a  large  part 
of  the  wealth  of  the  subject  nations  upon  the  restora- 
tion of  the  great  temples  of  Babylonia  and  especially 
of  Babylon.  ^ 

'  On  pages  172  and  174  of  Langdon's  work  Nebuchadnezzar  speaks  of 
"an  image  of  his  royal  person,"  which,  possibly,  he  had  set  up  "before 
Marduk  the  king. "    On  page  149  he  says  that  he  undertook  to  raise  the 


304  The  Book  of  Daniel 

He  undertook  nothing,  however,  but  at  the  command 
of  the  gods.  His  authority  was  deriv^ed  from  them. 
His  works  were  executed  through  their  help.  His 
conquests  were  made  by  their  help.  His  rule  was  es- 
tablished and  his  reign  secured  by  them.     The  fear  of  his 

top  of  the  temple  called  E-temen-an-ki  toward  Heaven  and  to  strengthen 
it,  and  for  this  purpose,  says  he,  "the  far  dwelling  peoples  over  whom 
Marduk  my  lord  had  appointed  me  and  whose  care  was  given  unto  me 
by  Shamash  the  hero,  all  lands  and  the  totality  of  all  men  from  the 
upper  to  the  lower  seas,  distant  lands,  the  men  of  wide-spread  habita- 
tions, the  kings  of  distant  mountains  and  remote  regions  who  are 
between  the  upper  and  the  lower  sea  with  whose  strength  Marduk 
my  lord  had  filled  my  hands  that  they  might  bear  his  yoke,  I  sum- 
moned together  with  the  worshippers  {ummanat)  of  Shamash  and  Mar- 
duk to  make  E-temen-an-ki. "  On  pages  68, 69,  he  prays  to  "  Ninkarraka, 
majestic  mistress,  to  command  before  Marduk,  lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  the  destruction  of  his  foes  and  the  ruin  of  the  land  of  his  enemies" 
(i,  38-49);  and  in  2  Col.  iii,  30-47,  that  "  Lugal-Marada,  his  god,  may 
smite  the  evil-minded,  break  their  weapons,  devastate  all  the  land  of  my 
enemies  and  slay  all  of  them.  Before  JVIarduk,  lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  make  my  deeds  appear  acceptable,  speak  for  my  favor."  On 
page  97  we  read,  "  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  has  learned  to  fear  the  gods, 
who  causes  to  exist  in  the  mouths  of  men  the  fear  of  the  great  gods, 
who  keeps  in  order  the  temples  of  the  gods."  On  page  98  he  says,  "I 
consulted  all  the  hidden  advice  of  Shamash,  Ramman,  and  Marduk"; 
on  page  151,  "All  men  of  wide-spread  habitations  I  compelled  to  do 
service  for  the  building  of  E-temen-an-ki. "  And  further,  on  the  same 
page:  "Oh  Marduk,  at  thy  command  the  city  of  the  gods  has  been 
builded,  by  thy  mighty  order  that  changes  not  may  it  prosper;  may  the 
work  of  my  hands  endure."  On  page  89,  he  speaks  of  "the  numerous 
peoples  which  Marduk  gave  into  his  hands,  of  gathering  all  men  under 
his  shadow  in  peace,  and  of  receiving  in  Babylon  the  tribute  of  the  kings 
of  all  regions  and  nations. "  On  page  93,  he  says  that  Marduk  sent  him 
to  care  for  his  work,  that  Nebo  caused  him  to  seize  a  scepter  of  justice; 
on  page  loi,  he  says  that  "his  ears  are  attentive  to  the  wisdom  of  Ninib, 
the  hero,  and  that  he  is  regardful  of  the  sacred  places  of  Ninib  and 
Ishtar";  and  on  page  103,  he  says  that  "he  adorned  with  gold  the  shrine 
of  Sarpanit,  Nebo,  and  Marduk,  and  rebuilt  the  temples  of  Nin-mah, 
Nebo,  Ramman,  Shamash,  Sin,  and  Ninlilanna, "  and  on  page  107,  "the 
temple  of  Shar-zarbi,  Anu,  Lugal-marada,  and  Ishtar."  See  also  the 
prayers  on  pages  121, 69,  97,  and  89,  and  for  his  superstition,  pages  93, 
99.  109.  121,  123. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  305 

gods  was  in  his  heart  and  in  the  heart  of  all  the  peoples 
subject  to  him,  so  that  they  obeyed  his  will  and  did  his 
works.  He  prayed  to  them  and  they  revealed  to  him 
their  will.  His  offerings  to  them  were  more  numerous 
than  those  of  any  who  had  preceded  him  and  their 
favors  to  him  excelled  those  that  they  had  granted  to 
any  others.  Through  their  favor,  he  slew  all  his 
enemies  and  subdued  all  his  foes.^ 

With  reference  to  the  belief  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in 
dreams  and  visions,  which  really  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  his  strenuous  insistence  upon  their  correct  interpre- 
tation, it  may  be  said  and  emphasized  that  no  one 
can  get  a  right  view  of  ancient  history  without  fully 
realizing  that  the  heroes  of  those  times  were  the  bom 
and  bred  children  of  superstition,  that  the  greatest  kings 

«  As  to  the  demand  of  the  wise  men,  that  they  should  discover  the 
dream  before  they  attempted  to  interpret  it,  Dr.  Behrmann,  in  his 
commentary  on  Daniel,  has  called  attention  to  a  parallel  case  mentioned 
in  Ibn  Hisham's  Life  of  Muhammed.  For  the  benefit  of  those  of  our 
readers  who  have  not  access  to  this  work,  either  in  its  Arabic  original 
or  in  Wustenfeld's  German  translation,  we  subjoin  a  translation  of  this 
passage:  "Rabia  son  of  Nassr,  was  one  of  the  weakest  of  the  Toba  kings 
of  Yemen.  He  saw  a  frightful  vision  and  was  exceedingly  troubled  by 
it.  So  he  called  the  prophets,  enchanters,  soothsayers,  and  astrologers 
of  all  his  kingdom  and  said  to  them :  I  have  seen  a  frightful  vision  and  am 
exceedingly  troubled  by  it.  Tell  me  it,  therefore,  and  its  meaning. 
And  they  said:  Relate  it  unto  us  and  we  will  tell  its  meaning.  And  he 
said  to  them:  If  I  tell  you  about  it,  I  cannot  be  certain  about  your 
telling  its  meaning.  Behold,  he  cannot  know  its  meaning  who  knows 
not  it  before  I  tell  it  to  him." 

To  this  parallel,  we  would  add  another  from  the  Arabian  Nights 
taken  from  the  story  of  Seifelmolouk,  which  illustrates  the  rage  of 
an  eastern  potentate  when  his  wise  men  have  failed  him.  When  King 
Asim  heard  that  his  son  was  ill,  he  summoned  the  sages  and  astrologers 
and  they  looked  at  him  and  prescribed  for  him;  but  he  remained  in  the 
same  state  for  a  period  of  three  months.  So  King  Asim  was  enraged 
and  said  to  the  sages:  "V/oe  to  you,  O  dogs!  Are  ye  all  unable  to  cure 
my  son?  Now,  if  ye  cure  liim  not  immediately,  I  will  slay  you  all!" 
(Lane's  Arabian  Nights ^  ii,  290.) 


3o6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

and  generals  believed  in  dreams  and  visions  and  fol- 
lowed the  advice  of  dream  interpreters  and  soothsayers 
of  all  sorts. 

For  example,  Ashurbanipal,  the  last  great  king  of 
Assyria,  says  in  his  Annal  inscription, '  that  Ashur  re- 
vealed Ashturbanipal's  name  to  Gyges,  king  of  Lydia, 
in  a  dream,  saying:  "Embrace  the  feet  of  Ashurbanipal, 
king  of  Assyria,  and  thou  shalt  conquer  in  his  name 
thine  enemies. "  "On  the  same  day  on  which  he  saw  the 
dream,  he  sent  his  horsemen  to  greet  me  and  sent  this 
dream  which  he  had  seen  through  his  ambassador  and 
told  it  to  me.  From  that  day  on,  from  the  time  that  he 
embraced  my  feet,  he  conquered  the  Cimmerians." 
On  Col.  iii,  Ii8,  he  says  that 

\ 
On  the  same  night  in  which  his  brother  Samassumukin 
rebelled  against  him,  a  seer  of  dreams  lay  down  at  night 
upon  the  earth  and  saw  a  dream,  as  follows :  Upon  the  face 
of  the  moon  stood  written:  "Whoever  plans  evil  against 
Ashurbanipal,  king  of  Assyria,  and  undertakes  a  battle 
against  him,  to  him  will  I  cause  an  evil  death  to  come; 
through  the  lightning-like  sword,  firebrand,  hunger,  and 
the  rage  of  Gira,  will  I  put  an  end  to  his  life. "  This  I  heard, 
and  I  trusted  on  the  word  of  Sin,  my  Lord. 

On  Col.  V,  97-103,  he  says  that  in  his  campaign  against 
Ummanaldis,  king  of  Elam,  his  troops  feared  to  pass 
the  rushing  flood  of  the  river  Ididi ;  but  Ishtar  that  very 
night  caused  the  troops  to  see  a  dream  and  in  it  said  to 
them,  "I  am  going  before  Ashurbanipal,  the  king, 
whom  my  hands  have  formed. "  Trusting  in  this  dream 
the  troops  crossed  the  Ididi  in  good  spirits  {shalmish) . 
Finally,  Col.  x,  51-120,  he  speaks  of  rebuilding  the 
Bit-riduti,  or  palace,  "in  which  upon  his  bed  the  gods 
» Col.  ii,  95-104. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  307 

had  given  him  favorable  dreams  by  night  and  good 
thoughts  by  day. " 

According  to  Herodotus,  the  war  of  Xerxes  against 
Greece  was  instigated  by  some  most  singular  dreams 
which  came  to  him  and  his  tmcle,  Artabanus;  and  with- 
out the  influence  of  these  dreams,  Herodotus  says 
that  the  war  would  not  have  been  undertaken  (Bk.  VII, 
12-18).  Alexander,  also,  is  represented  by  his  biog- 
raphers, as  having  been  guided  in  his  undertakings  by 
dreams,  visions,  and  omens;  and  as  having  a  prophet 
{mantis)  always  with  him.'  So,  Nebuchadnezzar 
speaks  of  Ninkarrak,  his  beloved  mistress,  who  gives 
him  good  visions;*  prays  to  Shamash  to  answer  him 
honestly  by  dreams  and  visions ;  ^  says  that  his  father 
had  cleaned  the  foundations  of  the  zikkurat  of  Babylon 
by  oracular  commission '»  and  that  he  restores  the  tem- 
ple of  Shamash  who  in  visions  announces  the  truthful 
reply; 5  and  uses  many  other  similar  phrases,  showing 
his  belief  in  and  obedience  to  the  will  of  the  gods  as 
revealed  in  visions  and  responses. 

Nabunaid  says  in  the  great  inscription  from  Ur,  Col. 
ii,  45-51,  that  Ishtar  of  Agani,  his  mistress,  sent  him  a 
dream  through  which  to  discover  the  fotmdations  of 
lulbar.  In  the  inscription  from  Abu-Habba,  Col.  i, 
16-33,  he  says  that 

in  the  beginning  of  his  kingdom,  the  gods  caused  him  to 
see  a  dream  {ushdbru*  inni  shutti).  Marduk,  the  great  god, 
and  Sin,  the  light  of  heaven  and  earth,  stood  on  either  side, 
and  Marduk  spoke  to  me:  *' Nabunaid,  king  of  Babylon, 
with  the  horse  of  thy  wagon  bring  bricks  and  build  Ihulhul 

'  See  Arrian's  Expedition  of  Alexander,  passim, 

"Langdon,  Nk.,  i;     Col.  iii,  5-8.  3  Jd.,  xii;     Col.  iii,  20-22. 

*Id.t  xvii;     Col.  i,  44-50.  s  Jd.^  xix;     Col.  vii,  62-66. 


3o8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

and  cause  Sin  the  good  lord  to  occupy  his  dwelling  place 
therein.'*  Reverently  spake  I  to  the  lord  of  the  gods: 
**That  temple  which  thou  hast  commanded  to  build,  the 
Scythian  surrounds  it,  and  extensive  are  his  troops. "  But 
Marduk  said  to  me:  "The  Scythian  whom  thou  hast 
mentioned — he,  his  land,  and  the  kings,  his  helpers,  are  no 
more. "  In  the  third  year^  they  caused  him  to  go  to  war, 
and  Cyrus,  the  king  of  Anzan  his  little  vassal,  scattered 
with  his  few  troops  the  far-extended  Scythians.  Astyages 
the  king  of  the  Scythians  he  captured  and  brought  as  a 
prisoner  to  his  own  land. 

On  Col.  ii,  59-61,  he  says  that  **Shamash,  the  great  god 
of  Ibara,  showed  to  him  the  dwelling  place  of  his  heart's 
joy,  in  Tashrit,  on  the  favorable  month,  on  the  lucky 
day,  which  Shamash  and  Ramman  had  made  known 
to  him  in  a  dream. " 

Astyages,  the  contemporary  of  Nabunaid,  and  the 
grandfather  of  Cyrus,  saw  two  dreams  which  the  dream- 
interpreters  explained  as  prefiguring  the  conquest  of  all 
Asia  by  his  grandson,  Cyrus.  ^ 

We  may  truly  say  that  the  men  of  that  time,  even 
the  greatest  of  them,  lived  and  moved  in  a  world  of 
dreams.  The  greater  the  man,  the  more  important  his 
dreams,  both  in  consequences  to  himself  and  to  those 
about  him.  Hence,  we  can  in  a  measure  imagine  the 
wrath  and  uncontrollable  indignation  of  Nebuchad- 
nezzar when  he  finds  that  he  cannot  trust  the  ability  of 
his  wise  men  to  explain  the  dream  that  troubles  him. 
One  great  part  of  his  system  of  kingcraft  seemed  to 
have  collapsed.  How  could  he,  henceforth,  find  out  the 
will  of  those  gods  on  whom  he  depended  and  whose 
commands  and  wishes  he  followed,  if  this  rreat  means  of 
revealing  their  will  through  visions  and  dreams  was 

*  Herodotus,  I,  107. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  309 

rendered  nugatory  through  the  ignorance  or  incapacity 
of  the  interpreters  of  dreams?  No  wonder  he  was 
beside  himself  with  rage  with  what  was  to  him,  perhaps, 
the  first  consciousness  of  utter  helplessness  he  had  ever 
felt!  This  will  account,  also,  for  his  extravagant  out- 
biirsts  of  praise  in  honor  of  Daniel  and  his  God.  From 
the  above  statements  as  to  the  beliefs  and  declarations 
and  acts  of  Nebuchadnezzar  gathered  from  his  own 
and  contemporary  documents,  it  is  evident  that  there 
is  no  moral  impossibility  of  his  having  issued  the  edicts 
recorded  in  the  book  of  Daniel  as  having  been  issued  by 
him. 

As  to  Darius  the  Mede,  inasmuch  as  no  one  knows 
anything  about  his  character  except  what  is  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  book  of  Daniel,  we  are  content  to  leave 
to  the  judgment  of  our  readers  the  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  the  man  whose  life  is  portrayed  for 
us  in  the  skth  chapter  could  have  been  induced  to  issue 
the  decree  about  the  prayers  to  himself  and  about  the 
punishment  of  being  thrown  into  the  den  of  lions  for 
disobedience  to  the  same,  or  the  decree  ordering  all 
nations  to  fear  the  God  of  Daniel.  We  believe  that 
the  question  can  be  answered  as  well  by  the  ordinary 
reader  as  by  the  most  learned  professor.  For  it  is  not 
a  question  demanding  scholarship  for  its  answer,  but 
simply  common  sense. 

The  only  other  question  with  reference  to  the  moral 
possibility  of  such  decrees  that  might  be  reasonably 
raised  would  arise  from  the  doubt  as  to  whether  a  king 
of  Media  or  Persia  would  probably  make  a  decree  for- 
bidding anyone  to  pray  to,  or  make  request  of,  any  god 
or  man  save  of  himself,  or  a  decree  commanding  the  na- 
tions to  fear  the  God  of  Daniel.  Those  who  deny  the 
possibility  of  such  decrees,  assimie  that  enough  is  known 


310  The  Book  of  Daniel 

of  the  religious  ideas  of  the  kings  of  Media  and  Persia 
to  enable  us  to  assert  that  such  decrees  would  have 
been  utterly  repugnant  to  their  beliefs.  It  is  assumed 
that  their  belief  was  an  unadulterated  Zoroastrianism, 
and  that  the  Zoroastrianism  of  that  time  as  well  as  of 
later  times  forbade  the  worship  of  any  god  save  Aura- 
mazda,  the  only  and  supreme  god.  But  whatever 
the  general  belief  may  have  been,  it  can  scarcely  be 
claimed  that  Cyrus,  Cambyses,  Smerdis  the  Magian, 
Astyages,  and  the  Achasmenian  kings  of  the  family  of 
Darius  Hystaspis,  or  any  of  the  kings  of  Persia,  recog- 
nized no  other  god  but  one.  For  example,  Cyrus  in 
the  Cylinder  Inscription  says  that  it  was  Marduk,  the 
god  of  Babylon,  who  in  his  anger  at  Nabunaid  troubled 
himself  to  call  Cyrus,  king  of  the  city  of  Anshan,  to  the 
dominion  of  all  the  world  (10-12).  Marduk,  also,  en- 
abled him  to  subdue  the  land  of  Kuti  and  the  Scythians, 
commanded  him  to  make  his  expedition  to  Babylon  and 
as  a  friend  and  helper  at  his  side,  caused  him  to  enter 
Babylon  without  a  battle,  delivered  Nabunaid  into  his 
hands,  and  showed  himself  gracious  unto  him  (13-21). 
Bel  and  Nebo,  also,  are  said  to  love  his  rule  and  to  have 
desired  with  joj^ul  heart  his  dominion  (22).  Cyrus 
concludes  the  inscription  with  the  prayer  that  all  the 
gods  may  daily  make  known  before  Bel  and  Nebo  the 
length  of  his  days,  may  speak  the  word  of  his  grace,  and 
say  to  Merodach,  his  lord,  a  prayer  for  Cyrus  the  king, 
who  honors  them,  and  for  Cambyses  his  son.  In  the 
Cyrus  Chronicle,  no  mention  of  the  religious  views 
of  C3mis  occurs;  but  his  breadth  of  view  as  to  polythe- 
ism is  implied  in  the  statement  on  the  Reverse,  line  21, 
that  as  soon  as  he  became  king  of  Babylon,  the  gods 
of  Accad,  which  Nabunaid  had  caused  to  be  carried  to 
Babylon,  were  brought  back  to  their  own  cities. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  311 

Nothing  further  is  known  from  the  Persian  and  Baby- 
lonian monuments  as  to  the  religious  views  of  Cyrus 
and  Cambyses. 

The  Egyptian  records,  however,  tell  us  that  Cam- 
byses came  to  Egypt,  **  willing  to  conform  to  the  local 
worships  that  he  fotmd. " ' 

He  worshiped  before  the  holiness  of  Neit  with  much 
devotion,  as  all  the  kings  had  done;  he  made  great  offer- 
ings of  all  good  things  to  Neit,  the  great,  the  divine  mother, 
and  to  all  the  gods  who  dwell  in  Sais,  as  all  the  pious  kings 
had  done." 

Darius  Hy^taspis  is  said  on  the  same  inscription  to  have 
continued  the  policy  of  Cambyses. 

His  Majesty,  the  king  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt, 
Darius,  ordered  me  [i.  e.,  Uza.  hor,  res.  neit]  to  go  to  Egypt 
while  his  Majesty  was  in  Aram  [Syria]  in  order  to  reestab- 
lish the  school  of  sacred  scribes.  His  Majesty  did  this 
because  he  knew  the  virtue  of  this  work  of  restoring  all  that 
he  found  wrecked,  and  to  restore  the  names  of  all  the  gods, 
their  temples,  their  endowments,  and  the  management  of 
their  feasts  forever.^ 

Nothing  whatever  is  known  from  the  monuments  as 
to  the  views  of  Smerdis  the  Magian,  and  Darius  Hystas- 
pis,  except  what  Darius  tells  us  in  his  Behistun  and  other 
inscriptions.  That  Darius  was  a  polytheist  appears 
in  the  Persepolis  Inscription  H,  where  he  prays:  **Let 
Auramazda  and  the  clan-gods  help  me,"  *'that  an 
enemy  may  not  come  to  this  country,  nor  an  army,  nor 
a  dearth  nor  a  rebellion;  for  his  favor  I  beseech  Aura- 

»  Petrie:  History  of  Egypt,  ill,  361. 

'  Id.,  361,  362.  Translated  by  Petrie  from  the  inscription  on  the 
statue  of  Uza.  hor.  res.  neit.  » Id.,  362. 


312  The  Book  of  Daniel 

mazda  and  the  clan-gods;  may  Auramazda  and  the 
clan-gods  grant  me  this."  So  Xerxes,  in  inscriptions 
E,  A,  C,  and  K  of  Spiegel,  prays  that  ''Auramazda 
and  the  gods  may  protect  him  and  his  kingdom." 
Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  who  ruled  immediately  after 
Xerxes,  from  465  to  425  B.C.,  prays  in  the  only  inscrip- 
tion of  his  that  we  have  that  Auramazda,  Anahita,  and 
Mithra  may  protect  him.  Artaxerxes  Ochus  prays 
that  Auramazda  and  Mithra  may  protect  him  and  his 
land. 

Let  us  remember,  too,  that  it  was  not  an  unheard-of 
thing  for  kings  to  be  looked  upon  as  gods.  The  kings 
of  Egypt  were  worshiped  as  such  from  immemorial 
times.  The  idea  of  Divus  Cagsar  is  closely  connected 
with  the  divine  right  of  kings.  Both  gods  and  kings 
were  lords.  Both  were  absolute  monarchs  and  auto- 
crats. The  difference  between  the  power  of  a  god  and 
that  of  a  king  might  easily  be  looked  upon  as  one  of 
degree  and  not  of  kind.  That  kings  could  be  called 
gods  is  witnessed  by  Pharaohs,  Ptolemies,  Seleucids, 
Herods,  and  Cassars.  It  is,  therefore,  neither  unnatural, 
grotesque,  nor  improbable,  that  the  courtiers  of  this 
Median  king  should  have  flattered  him  with  the  same 
ascriptions  of  godlike  power. 

Finally,  whatever  may  have  been  the  belief  of  the 
Persians,  or  of  the  Medes,  as  to  one  or  more  gods,  the 
decrees  of  Darius  the  Mede  were  meant  to  apply  not 
merely  to  the  Persians  and  Medes  among  his  subjects, 
but  to  the  Babylonians,  Assyrians,  Jews,  and  all  other 
nations  as  well.  Many  of  these  nations  had  many  gods. 
The  first  edict  of  Darius  forbids  anyone  of  any  nation 
from  making  request  of  any  god  or  man,  save  of  himself. 
This  may,  or  may  not,  imply  that  the  king  himself, 
or  any  of  his  subjects,  considered  Darius  to  be  a  god. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  313 

It  certainly  prohibits  one  and  all  from  praying  to  any- 
one for,  or  asking  from  anyone,  anything,  except  from 
the  king,  leaving  aside  the  question  as  to  the  belief  of 
the  person  praying. ' 

From  whatever  side  considered,  therefore,  there  is 
nothing  in  what  we  know  of  the  character  of  either 
Nebuchadnezzar  or  Darius  the  Mede,  to  make  it  im- 
possible to  believe  that  such  decrees  as  those  recorded 
in  Daniel  were  actually  made.  A  moral  impossibility 
against  such  decrees  is  a  figment  of  the  objector's 
imagination. 

II.  As  to  the  legal  impossibility  against  the  issue 
of  such  decrees,  one  need  only  say  that  the  evidence 
shows  that  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  origin  and  author- 
ity of  their  kingship  was  always  claimed  as  the  ground 
of  the  right  of  the  kings  of  both  Babylon  and  Persia 
to  rule. 

All  that  we  know  of  the  kings  of  ancient  Babylon 
shows  us  that  the  laws  of  the  land  were  formulated  by 
the  kings,  without  any  control  except  what  was  exer- 
cised by  the  gods,  doubtless  through  the  medium  of 
the  priests.  For  example,  Hammurabi  speaks  of  the 
judgments  of  the  land  which  he  had  pronounced  and  the 
decisions  of  the  land  which  he  had  rendered;^  and  he 
expresses  the  hope  that  future  kings  may  pronounce 
judgments  for  the  black-headed  people  and  render  their 
decisions.^  So,  also,  Nebuchadnezzar  refers  again 
and  again  to  the  fact  that  he  had  been  appointed  by 

*  The  decree  of  Darius  the  Mede,  commanding  his  subjects  to  tremble 
before  the  God  of  Daniel,  is  paralleled  in  the  Scriptures  by  the  decree  of 
Cyrus  recorded  in  2  Ch.  xxxvi,  23,  and  Ezra  i,  2-4,  by  the  decree  of  Da- 
rius recorded  in  Ezra  vi,  8,  acknowled^jing  the  God  of  heaven,  and  by 
the  decrees  of  Artaxerxes  found  in  Ezra  vii,  12-26,  and  Neh.  xi,  23,  and 
ii,7,  8. 

»  Harper:  Code,  Epilogue,  68-71.  a  Id.,  85-90. 


314  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Marduk  to  rule  over  all  peoples;  and  he  prays  to  Sha- 
mash,  "who  makes  successful  faithful  decisions,**  to 
grant  him  "a  scepter  of  righteousness,  a  good  rule, 
and  a  just  sway.*'^  So,  also,  the  Persian  kings  in  the 
formulation  and  promulgation  of  their  laws  admitted 
no  other  control  than  that  of  Auramazda.  Thus 
Darius  says:  "These  are  the  lands  which  submitted  to 
me;  what  was  commanded  them  by  me  was  carried  out. 
Through  the  grace  of  Auramazda  have  their  lands  been 
constituted  according  to  my  law:  as  it  was  commanded 
them  by  me,  so  was  it  done."^ 

The  fact,  also,  that  the  kings  never  acknowledge 
any  laws  of  men  as  binding  upon  them,  but  appeal 
always  for  their  right  to  make  decrees  and  for  their 
authority  to  execute  them  to  the  revealed  will  of  the 
gods  whom  they  served,  shows  that  they  recognized 
no  such  human  laws  as  binding  upon  them.  Appeal  is 
made,  it  is  true,  in  Daniel  vi,  to  the  laws  of  the  Medes 
and  Persians;  but  in  the  same  chapter  it  is  shown  how  a 
king  could  decree  a  law  which  annulled  in  its  practice 
all  the  laws  and  customs  as  to  the  worship  of  Aura- 
mazda, Marduk,  and  all  the  other  gods,  which  had 
prevailed  up  to  that  time.  In  Esther,  too,  we  are 
shown  how  laws  once  made  could  be  circumscribed  and 
circumvented  by  new  laws  which  rendered  their  execu- 
tion practically  impossible.  The  case  of  Cambyses, 
recorded  by  Herodotus  (Bk.  Ill,  31),  when  "he  sum- 
moned the  royal  judges  and  asked  them  if  there  was  any 
law  permitting  one  who  wished  to  marry  his  sister,  **  is 
not  against  the  theory  that  the  king  was  autocratic;  for 
the  judges,  while  saying,  "they  could  find  no  law  per- 
mitting a  brother  to  marry  his  sister,**  said  also,  that 
"  they  had  discovered  another  law  which  permitted  the 

*  Langdon,  op  cit.,  p.  99.  *  Beh.  Ins.  i,  7,  8. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  315 

king  of  Persia  to  do  whatever  he  pleased."  In  the 
inscriptions  of  both  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Darius  Hys- 
taspis  the  view  of  ''Uetat  c'est  moi"  (I  am  the  state) 
is  observable  everywhere.  As  was  said  to  be  true  of 
a  recent  writer,  the  fonts  of  type  would  scarcely  have 
enough  capital  Fs  to  enable  the  printer  to  set  up  the 
translation  of  the  inscriptions  of  Nebuchadnezzar; 
and  as  for  Darius,  he  begins  every  sentence  with  a 
'*  thus  saith  Darius  the  king. "  The  history  of  Herodo- 
tus, also,  shows  that  the  kings  of  Persia  were  absolutely 
autocratic,  monarchs  beyond  control,  except  through 
their  superstitions  and  their  fears. 

III.  As  to  the  carrying  out  of  these  decrees  having 
been  physically  impossible,  a  few  words  only  need  be 
said;  and  we  shall  say  these  words  under  three  heads 
corresponding  to  the  three  principal  decrees. 

1.  As  to  the  decree  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  chapter 
two  that  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  should  be  killed, 
it  is  perfectly  certain  that  it  was  practically  possible  of 
accomplishment.  The  wise  men  were  probably  dis- 
tinguished by  a  peculiar  dress.  At  any  rate,  they  would 
belong  to  guilds,  or  classes,  whose  members  would  be 
known  by  name  as  well  as  by  vocation.  We  may  com- 
pare with  this  edict  for  their  destruction  the  similar  edict 
of  Saul  to  destroy  the  witches,  and  the  massacre  of  the 
Magians  by  Darius,  and  the  annihilation  by  the  new 
regime  of  Egyptian  kings  of  the  followers  of  the  new 
cult  of  the  sun  disk  established  by  Amenophis  IV. 

2.  The  decree  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  chapter  iii, 
according  to  which  those  who  refused  to  obey  his  com- 
mands were  to  be  burned  in  a  fiery  furnace,  was  easy 
to  carry  out  and  was  apparently  in  agreement  with 
Assyrio-Babylonian  custom.  For  we  are  told  that 
Shamashshumukin  the  brother  of  Ashurbanipal  threw 


3i6  The  Book  of  Daniel 

himself  into  a  furnace  of  fire.'  Ashurnasirpal,  also, 
speaks  frequently  of  the  burning  of  people  in  a 
fire.* 

3.  The  decree  of  Darius  the  Mede  with  regard  to 
the  den  of  lions  was  easy  of  execution,  inasmuch  as  at 
that  time  lions  were  common  in  all  that  part  of  the 
world.  The  Assyrian  kings  were  wont  to  hunt  lions  as  a 
pastime.  Thus  Tiglath-Pileser  I  says  that  he  killed 
920  lions  in  one  hunting  expedition;^  and  Ashurnas- 
irpal says  that  he  killed  at  one  time  120  lions 
and  that  at  another  time  he  captured  50  young  lions 
and  shut  them  up  in  Calah  and  in  the  palaces  of  his 
land  in  cages  and  let  them  produce  their  young.  ^  At 
another  time  he  killed  370  strong  lions.  ^  In  his  me- 
nagerie, he  says,  also,  that  he  had  herds  of  wild  oxen,  ele- 
phants, lions,  birds,  wild  asses,  gazelles,  dogs,  panthers,  ^ 
and  all  animals  of  the  mountains  and  of  the  plains,  to 
show  to  his  people.''  Moreover,  the  Hebrew  poets 
and  prophets  were  familiar  with  lions;  the  people, 
also,  made  proverbs  concerning  them;  and  their 
heroes,  such  as  Samson  and  David,  are  said  to  have 
slain  them.  So,  also,  the  oldest  story  in  the  Aramaic 
language  (that  of  Achikar  from  the  fifth  century  B.C.) 
treats  the  lion  as  a  well  known  animal.^  Herodo- 
tus says  that  lions  interfered  with  the  march  of 
Xerxes*  army  to  Greece.  ^  Surely,  if  we  can  believe 
that  the  Romans  imported  lions  from  Africa  and  threw 
the  Christians  to  them  in  the  Coliseum,  we  can  read- 
ily believe  that  a  Median  king  of  Babylon  may  have 
had  a  den  of  lions  into  which  to  throw  those  who  had 

'     «  KB.  ii,  190.  « E,  g.,  KB.  i,  71,  75,  77,  81,  91. 

3  KB.  i,  39.  *Id.  sid. 

*  This  word  nimru  may  denote  also  leopard  or  tiger.  7  Jd. 

•See  Sachau:^  raw.  Pap.,  p.  181.  »  Bk.  VII. 


The  Edicts  of  the  Kings  317 

disobeyed  his  laws.  Certainly,  at  least,  there  was  no 
physical  impossibility  in  the  matter. 

IV.  As  to  its  being  historically  impossible  that  the 
edicts  recorded  in  Daniel  should  have  been  issued,  it  need 
only  be  asked  what  evidence  there  is  against  them. 
Not  one  edict  of  Nebuchadnezzar  or  of  any  other  New 
Babylonian  king,  is  recorded  in  any  contemporaneous 
document  that  has  come  down  to  us.  Several  com- 
mands, or  orders  of  the  day,  of  Nebuchadnezzar  are 
found  in  the  Scriptures.  Thus,  at  his  command,  Zed- 
ekiah  and  Ahab  were  roasted  in  the  fire;'  the  children 
of  Zedekiah  king  of  Judah  were  slain  before  the  eyes 
of  their  father,  whose  eyes  were  then  put  out;^  and 
Jchoiachin  was  carried  to  Babylon  in  chains  and  kept 
in  prison  for  thirty-seven  years.  ^ 

In  Nebuchadnezzar's  own  inscriptions,  there  are  the 
following  orders,  but  no  formal  decrees.  He  sum- 
moned {ikhi)  the  peoples  that  he  ruled  to  build  one 
of  his  temples  and  compelled  them  to  do  service,^  and 
he  regulated  (manu)  the  offerings  to  the  god  Marduk.* 
So,  also,  Nabimaid  orders  the  workmen  {umman' 
ati)  of  Shamash  and  Marduk  to  build  Ebarra;^  and 
commands  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  to  seek  the  old 
foundation  of  Ebarra  in  Sippar.  Cyrus,  moreover, 
proclaimed  peace  in  Babylon  just  after  he  entered  it 
as  conqueror.  7  Darius  I  issued  a  grant  for  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  college  of  physicians  at  Sais.^  Xerxes 
commanded  that  the  inscription  of  Van  should  be  made.  ^ 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  not  merely  have  no  decrees 


»  Jer.  xxix,  22. 

»  Id.,  Iii,  II. 

3  2  ICings  XXV, 

27. 

4  Langdon,  148- 

•151.               5/^.,  159. 

<5  7(f.,  p.241. 

7  KB.  iii,  2,  135 

. 

8  Zeitschrift  filr  . 

Az^ptische  Sprache,  xxxvii, 

72 

-74- 

'Spiegel:  Altpers.  Keilinschrift.,  p.  66. 

3i8  The  Book  of  Daniel 

strictly  so-called  of  the  kings  of  Babylon  and  Persia 
come  down  to  us ;  but  that  few  even  of  their  commands 
have  been  preserved  to  us,  except  such  as  are  given  in 
the  Greek  historians.  There  must  have  been  thousands 
of  decrees  made  by  these  kings.  What  these  decrees 
were  we  cannot  know.  To  deny  that  the  decrees  re- 
corded in  Daniel  were  made  would  involve  a  knowledge 
of  all  the  decrees  that  these  kings  made.  Such  a  know- 
ledge will  never  be  ours.  It  is  futile,  therefore,  to  say 
that  it  was  impossible  that  Darius  made  a  decree 
about  the  lions,  or  Nebuchadnezzar  about  the  image,  or 
Belshazzar  about  the  promotion  of  Daniel.  One  can  at 
best  merely  .deny  that  there  is  outside  of  Daniel  any 
evidence  that  these  decrees  were  made.  This,  indeed, 
is  admitted.  It  is  maintained,  however,  that  lack  of 
evidence  for  is  not  evidence  against.  Unless  Darnells 
positive  and  explicit  statements  can  be  disproved,  their 
veracity  stands  unimpeached. 

Conclusion 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  edicts  of  the  kings  as 
recorded  in  Daniel  are  not  merely  not  impossible,  but 
that  they  are  very  probable.  They  certainly  may 
have  been  enacted.  Daniel  says  they  were.  It  has  not 
been  shown,  it  cannot  be  shown,  that  what  he  says  is 
not  true.  But  it  has  been  shown  that  it  is  not  impossi- 
ble for  them  to  be  genuine.  It  has  been  shown,  further, 
that  they  very  probably  are  genuine,  inasmuch  as  they 
harmonize  with  what  we  would  expect  from  such  kings 
as  Nebuchadnezzar,  Belshazzar,  and  Darius  the  Mede 
and  from  the  conditions  imder  which  they  lived  and 
reigned. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  CHALDEANS 

It  is  futile  to  suppose  that  we  can  define  the  vocabu- 
lary which  the  writer  of  an  ancient  document  must 
have  used.  To  say  that  a  given  ancient  record  cannot 
have  been  written  before  a  certain  date  because  a  cer- 
tain word  or  phrase  occurs  in  it,  is  to  assume  a  knowl- 
edge which  we  to-day  seldom  possess.  Almost  every 
new  find  of  docimients  in  whatever  language  written 
presents  to  us  a  number  of  words  which  before  its  dis- 
covery were  unknown  to  us.  Thus,  the  papyrus  con- 
taining the  Mimes  of  Herodas,  first  published  in  1891, 
revealed  a  large  number  of  Greek  vocables  which  were 
not  made  known  in  other  Greek  works  of  antiquity  and 
were  not  to  be  found  in  our  standard  classical  diction- 
aries. So,  also,  the  Greek  papyri,  ostraka,  and  inscrip- 
tions have  enlarged  our  knowledge  of  the  so-called 
Hellenistic  Greek,  until  it  has  required  the  rewriting 
of  our  grammars  and  a  readjustment  of  all  our  con^ 
ceptions  of  the  origin  and  use  of  the  common  Greek 
language  of  New  Testament  times. 

The  recent  finds  of  Aramaic  documents  in  Egypt 
have  in  like  manner  caused  a  revolution  in  our  ideas  of 
the  Aramaic  of  the  times  of  Ezra.  Not  merely  do  they 
necessitate  a  revision  of  all  of  our  previous  theories 
with  regard  to  the  orthography,  phonology,  morphology, 
and  syntax  of  the  Aramaic  language;  they  also  supple- 

319 


320  The  Book  of  Daniel 

ment  the  vocabulary  with  a  large  number  of  hitherto 
undiscovered  terms.  Above  all,  they  make  known 
to  us  a  large  nimiber  of  foreign  words  which  the  Ara- 
means  of  that  time  and  country  had  adopted  from  their 
rulers  and  neighbors.  So  that,  when  we  survey  the 
whole  field  of  foreign  words  in  the  various  Aramaic  dia- 
lects, and  especially  in  Egypto- Aramaic,  there  are  found 
among  other  peculiarities  the  following: 

1.  I.  Many  foreign  words  are  to  be  found  in  use 
in  but  one  Aramaic  document. 

2.  Some  words  known  to  be  foreign  can  be  identified 
with  no  terms  found  as  yet  in  the  original  language  from 
which  they  are  known  to  be  derived. 

3.  Some  words,  whose  foreign  origin  is  certain,  are 
found  in  use  in  Aramaic  documents  long  before  they 
are  found  in  use  in  the  original  language  from  which 
they  were  derived. 

4.  Some  foreign  words  are  found  in  use  in  an  early 
document  although  they  are  not  found  again  for  hun- 
dreds of  years. 

5.  Aramaic  words  which  have  been  supposed  to  be 
borrowed  are  sometimes  found  to  have  been  native,  or 
at  least  to  be  Semitic. 

6.  Some  are  found  in  different  docimients  and  in 
different  dialects,  but  are  confined  to  one  age  and 
derived  from  one  source  dating  from  the  same  period. ' 

» In  illustration  of  the  above  statements  the  following  examples  may 
be  given: 

I.  1.  (i)  AstaUd  is  found  in  the  Syriac  Aramaic  of  Joshua  theStylite 
(sec.  lix)  and  there  only.  It  is  a  Persian  word  said  by  Joshua  to  mean 
Magister,  or  "master  of  the  soldiery." 

(2)  Chartummin  (Dan.  ii,  10,  27;  iv,  6;  v,  11),  denoting  one  kind 
of  soothsayer,  is  found  nowhere  else  in  Aramaic.  It  seems  to  have 
been  taken  over  by  the  author  of  Daniel  from  the  Hebrew  of  Genesis, 
the  only  place  where  it  occurs  in  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament.    It 


The  Chaldeans  321 

II.  I.  Further,  of  pure  Aramaic  words,  some 
are  foimd  in  the  early  documents  which  are  not  found 
again  in  the  Aramaic  dialects  for  hundreds  of  years. 

2.     Secondly,  some  are  used  in  one  dialect  alone. 


is  derived  apparently  from  the  Egyptian,  though  not  identified  with  any 
known  Egyptian  word. 

2.  (i)  Nopata,  "ship-master,"  of  Sachau  Papyrus  No.  8,  from  Per- 
sian Nav  "ship, "  and  pati,  "lord."  This  compound  word  is  found  in  no 
other  Aramaic  doctmient,  or  dialect;  nor  does  it  occur  in  Hebrew,  nor  in 
Phenician,  early  or  late;  nor,  in  fact,  has  it  been  foimd  in  Old,  Middle,  or 
New  Persian.  The  sense  of  the  context  in  Papyrus  8,  and  of  a  word 
of  like  meaning  in  New  Persian,  and  the  meaning  of  the  parts  of  the 
compound,  seem,  however,  to  justify  the  form  and  meaning  of  the  word 
in  this  place  as  given  by  Dr.  Sachau. 

(2)  Sewnekanin  "Syenese"  of  the  Sac.  Pap.  No.  4,  formed  by 
affixing  the  Persian  ending  kan  to  the  word  Syene,  and  then  putting  on 
the  Aramaic  plural  ending  in. 

(3)  Pathag  "delicacies"  has  not  been  found  in  Persian  either  ancient 
or  modem. 

(4)  Further  examples  of  this  kind  are  the  Greek  words  kerkiesis  and 
kerkesirts,  from  the  Ptolemaic  period,  composed  of  the  Aramaic  word 
kerk  "village"  and  the  nouns  Isis  and  Osiris.  These  Aramaic  words 
which  are  thus  made  known  by  the  Greek  papyri  have  never  been  found 
in  any  other  Aramaic  documents. 

3.  (i)  Dathbar  (Dan.  ii,  2,  3)  "judge,"  is  certainly  derived  from 
the  Persian  dath,  "law, "  and  bar  "  to  bear. "  It  is  found  in  Babylonian, 
also,  but  not  in  the  Old  Persian  of  the  inscriptions,  nor  in  the  Avesta. 
(See  Davis  in  Harper  Mem.  Volume.) 

(2)  Artabe  a  kind  of  measure,  is  said  by  Herodotus  (Bk.  I,  192) 
to  be  a  Persian  word  taken  over  into  Greek.  Herodotus  uses  it  before 
424  B.  c. ;  but  it  does  not  occur  in  any  document  in  Old  or  Middle  Persian. 
It  is  found  under  the  form  ardab  in  the  Aramaic  of  the  Sachau  Papyrus, 
No.  25,  4,  e/  al. 

(3)  Pitgam  "command,  "  "word,"  (Dan.  iii,  16,  iv,  14),  is  found 
in  Armenian  under  the  form  padgam.  It  is  not  found  in  the  Persian  of 
the  inscriptions  nor  in  that  of  the  Avesta. 

4.  As  examples  of  foreign  words  found  in  use  in  an  early  document 
of  a  language  and  not  found  again  for  hundreds  of  years  we  may  note: 

(i)  Zarnika  "arsenic"  occurs  in  Sac.  Pap.  No.  8,  and  not  again 
in  Aramaic  till  after  200  A.  d.  According  to  Lagarde  (G.  A.,  47,  117) 
this  is  a  Persian  word.     (See  Brockelmann,  Lex.  Syr.  in  loc.) 


322  The  Book  of  Daniel 

3.  Thirdly,  some  are  used  in  documents  from  one 
age  alone. ' 

Since  no  one  of  these  nine  statements  can  be  denied, 
it  will  be  a  reckless  man  who  will  assert  that  a  word 
cannot  have  been  used  by  a  writer  of  the  sixth  century 

(2)  Kebritha^  "brimstone"  is  a  second  example  of  the  same  kind. 
Sac.  Pap.  9,i7i  21. 

(3)  Stater  is  a  Greek  word  used  in  the  Egyptian  papyri  of  the 
fifth  century  b.  c.  a  number  of  times,  but  not  found  again  in  Aramaic  till 
200  A.D.     Sac.  Pap.  15,  29,  3;  34,  4,  7,  9,  60,  9;  II,  12. 

5.  As  examples  of  words  supposed  to  have  been  derived  from  one 
language  but  which  have  been  discovered  later  to  have  been  derived  from 
another,  are: 

(i)  Mdy,  "a  measure,"  which  was  formerly  supposed  to  have  been 
borrowed  from  the  Latin  modius.  Inasmuch  as  it  occurs  in  Sac. 
Pap.  No.  8,  of  the  year  412  B.C.,  it  seems  impossible  to  hold  longer  this 
view.  It  is  better  to  take  it  from  the  Assyrian  madadu  or  from  the 
Hebrew  mada^  "to  measure." 

(2)  So,  iggereth,  "letter,"  which  Marti  in  his  Kurz.  Gram,  der 
Aram.  Sprache,  Berlin,  191 1,  p.  57,  compares  only  with  Iranian,  New 
Persian,  and  Greek,  is  surely  Assyrio-Babylonian.  It  is  found,  for 
example,  in  Harper's  letter  931,  obv.  13,  written  about  650  B.C.  See, 
also,  letter  414,  obv.  18. 

6.  As  examples  of  words  used  in  a  certain  age  alone  may  be  men- 
tioned HQa:nK  (de  Vogue  26,  a.d.  264)=«QapK  in  Targum  to  2 
Chron.  xxviii,  7. 

^  In  illustration  of  the  statements  under  II,  the  following  examples 
may  be  given: 

1.  As  examples  of  Aramaic  words  found  in  the  Egypto-Aramaic 
which  are  not  found  again  for  centuries,  may  be  mentioned: 

(i)  Sejina,  "ship"  (Sac.  Pap.  8);  and 

(2)  Peshka,  "handbreadth"  (id.). 

2 .  As  examples  of  words  used  in  one  dialect  alone  may  be  mentioned : 
(i)  Pucenarius,  found  in  Palmyrene  alone,  see  de  Vogue  24,  2  (a.d. 

263);  id.,  25,  2  (a.d.  263);  id.,  26,  2  (a.d.  264). 

(2)  Degel,  "regiment,  "found  in  this  sense  in  the  Egypto-Aramaic 
alone  (Sac.  Pap.,  15,  29,  2  bis;  26,  27,  3  his;  32,  2;  59»  4.  2;  60,  3,  2; 
71,  12;  33,  33,  2;  58,  3,  2;  52,  i),  though  it  occurs  also  in  New  Hebrew. 

3.  As  examples  of  words  used  in  documents  of  one  age  alone,  see 
ga?erin  (Dan.  ii.  27,  iv,4,  v,7,  11)  for  the  augurs  of  Babylon,  and  'hind, 
**  opportunity"  in  Joshua  the  Stylite,  xiii  and  lix. 


The  Chaldeans  323 

B.C.,  because  that  word  has  been  found  in  no  other 
known  author  of  that  time,  or  in  fact,  of  any  other  time. 
We  simply  do  not  know  enough  to  make  these  asser- 
tions, and  we  might  as  well  admit  it.  To  say  that  a 
writer  of  Aramaic  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.  cannot 
have  used  the  word  ** Chaldean"  or  the  Greek  names  of 
three  musical  instruments  is  merely  to  make  an  asser- 
tion that  lies  beyond  the  bounds  of  proof.  The  desire 
to  find  fault  and  to  depreciate  the  genuineness  of  Daniel 
overrides  the  historico-philological  judgment  of  those 
who  say  it.  Neither  history  nor  philology  supports 
such  an  assertion,  as  I  shall  attempt  in  the  following 
discussion  to  show.  Before  entering  upon  this  discus- 
sion, however,  the  following  caveat  must  be  entered,  to 
wit:  that  even  though  it  may  be  impossible  to  demon- 
strate when  or  how  certain  foreign  words  came  into  a 
language,  the  time  of  their  coming  there  cannot  com- 
monly be  determined  by  the  date  at  which  they  first 
appear  in  another  docimient,  whether  this  other  docu- 
ment be  in  the  language  from  which  the  word  has  been 
derived,  or  in  the  language  that  has  derived  the  word. 
All  analogy,  based  on  records  already  found,  would 
lead  us  to  believe  that  himdreds  of  both  native  and 
foreign  words  were  used  by  the  ancient  Arameans  that 
have  hitherto  been  discovered  in  no  Aramaic  document.  * 
The  accumulating  finds  in  Greek  teach  us  that  there 
were  doubtless  thousands  of  Greek  words  in  common 
use  that  have  never  been  used  by  the  classical  writers 

»  For  proof  of  this  statement,  it  is  only  necessary  to  attempt  to  trans- 
late Sachau  Papyrus  8  which  is  full  of  Persian  and  Egyptian  words, 
many  of  them  of  tmknown  meaning;  and  also  of  good  Aramaic  words, 
as  to  which  Prof.  Sachau  well  remarks:  "was  man  sonst  aus  dem  Ara- 
maischen  oder  Hebraischen  weiss  und  zum  Vergleich  heranziehen  kann, 
ist  nicht  genugend,  ma.  das  Verstandnis  dieser  Uikunde  zu  erschliessen." 
(See  Sachau:  Aram,  Pap.,  p.  47.) 


324  The  Book  of  Daniel 

that  have  come  down  to  us.  Any  one  of  these  words 
might  have  been  borrowed  by  the  Arameans  and 
others  who  came  in  contact  with  the  Greeks  who  used 
them.  Again,  new  discoveries  in  the  Egyptian,  Baby- 
lonian, Persian,  and  all  other  ancient  languages  are 
always  revealing  to  us  afresh  otu-  ignorance  of  the  full- 
ness of  their  vocabularies,  and  of  the  origin  and  use 
of  their  words.  Cognizant  of  this  imiversal  lack  of 
knowledge  of  the  limitations  of  the  vocabularies  of 
ancient  languages,  and  refusing  to  be  botmd  by  mere 
assertions  that  a  given  word  cannot  have  been  used 
by  a  given  writer  at  a  given  time,  inasmuch  as  we  do 
not  happen  to  know  that  some  other  writer  of  that 
same  time  or  of  some  time  previous  used  it,  I  pass  on  to 
a  consideration  of  the  objections  made  to  the  book  of 
Daniel  on  the  assumption  that  its  author  has  employed 
certain  words  which  could  not  have  been  used  in  the 
sixth  century  B.  C.  I  shall,  at  present,  confine  myself 
to'  a  discussion  of  the  word  * 'Chaldean,"  as  to  which 
the  critics  of  Daniel  assert  that  it  cannot  have  been 
used  as  early  as  the  sixth  century  B.  c.  to  denote  the 
Babylonian  astrologers,  inasmuch,  they  say,  as  it  is  not 
found  in  use  in  this  sense  imtil  a  much  later  time. 

Objections  Stated 

Professor  Cornill  says:  **The  manner  in  which  the 
term  kasdim  (Chaldean),  exactly  like  the  Latin  Chal- 
daeus,  is  used  in  the  sense  of  soothsayer  and  astrologer 
(ii,  2,  4,  5,  10 ;  iv,  4;  v,  7,  11)  is  inconceivable  at  a  time 
when  the  Chaldeans  were  the  ruling  people  of  the 
world.  "^ 

Professor  Driver  states  the  objection  as  follows : 

*  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  387. 


The  Chaldeans  325 

The  "Chaldeans"  are  synonymous  in  Daniel  (i,  4;  ii,  2; 
etc.)  with  the  caste  of  wise  men.  This  sense  "is  unknown 
to  the  Ass.  Bab.  language,  has,  wherever  it  occurs,  formed 
itself  after  the  end  of  the  Babylonian  empire,  and  is  thus 
an  indication  of  the  post-exilic  composition  of  the  Book" 
(Schrader,  The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 2nd  edition,  p.  429).  It  dates,  namely,  from  a  time 
when  practically  the  only  "Chaldeans"  known  belonged  to 
the  caste  in  question  (comp.  Meinhold,  Beitrdge,  p.  28).* 

Professor  Meinhold,  to  whom  Dr.  Driver  refers,  says 
in  the  passage  cited  as  follows: 

Wonderful  above  all  things  appears  to  us  the  use  of  the 
name  Kasdim.  For  while  Kasdim  everywhere  else  in  the 
Old  Testament  is  a  designation  of  the  Babylonian  people,  we 
find  here  alongside  of  this  common  meaning  (iii,  8 :  v,  30) 
that  of  Magians  which  is  also  known  from  the  profane  his- 
torians. As  to  what  particular  kind  of  Magians  these  are 
is  not  clear,  since  Kasdim  is  at  times  the  general  desig- 
nation of  the  totality  of  all  classes  of  wise  men  (ii,  10) 
and  at  times  is  a  special  designation  of  a  division  of  the  same 
(iv,  4;  V,  10).  This  striking  appearance  is  only  to  be  ex- 
plained by  the  fact  that  the  Jews  of  the  exile  had  first 
learned  something  of  the  Chaldeans  as  a  special  division  of 
the  wise  men  within  the  totality  of  the  Babylonian  nation. 
Everywhere  in  the  Old  Testament  kasdim  appears  rather 
as  the  most  general  name  of  the  whole  people. 

The  more  specific  meaning,  however,  shows  that  the 
knowledge  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Chaldeans  had  only  been 
retained  in  the  memory  of  the  priests  and  wise  men  of 
succeeding  times.  While  everything  else  had  soon  passed 
away  and  disappeared  in  the  course  of  time,  the  castes, 
because  of  a  religious  kind,  could  still  long  be  retained  in 
remembrance.  They  were  the  only  remains  of  the  Chal- 
deans.    They  were  the  Chaldeans.     Thus  is  explained  the 

« Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  498. 


326  The  Book  of  Daniel 

later  use  of  the  name.     An  exilic  author  could,  however,  not 
write  thus/ 

Assumptions  Involved 

There  are  here  the  following  asstimptions : 

1.  That  the  term  kasdim  to  denote  the  ruling  na- 
tion in  Babylon  passed  away  from  the  remembrance 
of  succeeding  times,  while  the  use  of  it  to  denote  the 
wise  men  remained.         -^ 

II.  I.  That  the  original  of  the  word  kasdim,  in  the 
sense  of  a  priestly  class,  is  not  foimd  on  the  monuments. 

2.  That  the  word  Chaldean  as  used  for  priest,  or 
wise  man,  is  of  the  same  origin,  or  meaning,  as  the  word 
Chaldean  as  used  to  denote  a  people. 

3.  That  the  absence  of  the  term  in  its  priestly 
sense  from  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  montiments  proves 
that  it  was  not  employed  by  the  Babylonians  in  com- 
mon speech  to  denote  a  certain  class  of  wise  men. 

III.  That  the  apparent  absence  of  the  word  from 
the  Assyrio-Babylonian  language  is  a  proof  that  it  was 
not  used  in  the  Aramaic  language. 

Answer  to  Assumptions 

I.  Taking  up  the  assimiptions  in  the  order  named, 
we  shall  discuss  the  first  under  two  heads :  first,  the  use 
of  the  word  to  denote  a  people,  and  secondly,  its  use 
to  denote  a  priestly  class. 

»  It  is  admitted  that  in  the  Scriptures  outside  of  Daniel,  the  word 
always  denoted  a  people. 

The  places  where  it  is  employed  in  this  sense  are,  Gen,  xi,  28,  31; 
XV,  7;  2  Kings,  xxiv,  2;  xxv,  4,  5, 10,  13,  24,  25,  26;  2  Chron.  xxxvi,  17; 
Neh.  ix,  7;  Job  i,  17;  Is.  xiii,  19;  xxiii,  13;  xliii,  14;  xlvii,  i,  5;  xlviii,  14, 
20;  Jer.  xxi,  4,  9;  xxii,  25;  xxiv,  5;  xxv,  12;  xxxii,  4,  5,  24,  25,  28,  29,  43; 
xxxiii,  5; XXXV,  ii;xxxvii,  5,  8,  9,  10,  11,  13,  14;  xxxviii,  2,  18,  19,23; 
xxxix,  5,  8;  xl,  9,  10;  xli,  3,  18;  xliii,  3;  1,  I,  8, 10,  25,  35,  45;  li,  4,  24,  35, 
54;  lii,  7,  8,  14,  17;  Ezek.,  i,  3;  xi,  24;  xii,  13;  xxiii,  14,  15.  16.23; 
Hab.  i,  6. 


The  Chaldeans  327 

I.  It  is  admitted  that  in  the  Scriptures  outside  of 
Daniel  the  word  always  denoted  a  people.  In  Daniel, 
also,  it  is  employed  to  denote  a  people;  once  in  the  He- 
brew portion,  chapter  ix,  i,  where  it  is  said  that  Darius 
had  been  "made  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldeans  " ; 
and  once  in  the  Aramaic,  in  chapter  v,  30,  where  it  is 
said  that  "Belshazzar  the  Chaldean  king  (or  king  of  the 
Chaldeans)  was  slain. "  In  Daniel  i,  4,  the  Chaldeans 
may  be  the  people,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  the 
priestly  class  is  meant. 

On  the  monuments  we  find  this  sense,  with  one  or  two 
possible  exceptions,  only  in  those  inscriptions  which 
come  from  Assyria.  The  docimients  from  the  Persian, 
Greek,  and  Parthian  periods  never  use  it  to  denote  a 
people;  and  those  from  the  Babylonian  of  the  time  pre- 
ceding Cyrus  never  employ  it  in  this  sense,  save  perhaps 
once.  This  exception  is  in  an  inscription  of  Nabunaid 
addressed  to  the  gods  Shamash  and  Ai  of  Sippar,  in 
which  he  mentions  the  cedars  (erinu)  of  Amanus  and 
of  the  land  of  Kal-da.  ^  Since  we  have  no  evidence  from 
any  other  source  that  cedars  were  a  product  of  the 
Chaldea  south  of  Babylon,  it  is  most  probable  that 
some  other  land  with  a  similar  name  was  meant  by 
Nabimaid.  It  is  a  most  remarkable  circumstance 
that  none  of  the  docimients  from  Babylonia,  not  even 
those  of  the  Chaldean  kings  themselves,  with  the  possi- 
ble exception  of  this  one  instance  just  noted,  ever  speak 
of  either  the  Chaldean  land  or  people. 

The  Assyrians,  however,  frequently  mention  both  the 
land  and  the  people  of  the  Kaldu,  from  the  time  of 
Ashtunasirabal  (885-860  B.c),  down  to  the  time  of 
Ashurbanipal  (668-626  B.C.). 

After  the  time  of  Ashurbanipal  neither  the  land  nor 

» Zehnpf und-Langdon,  NK,  p.  231;  Col.  i,  23. 


328  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  people  of  the  Chaldeans  is  mentioned  till  the  time 
of  Sophocles^  and  Herodotus  (464-424  B.  c),  the  latter 
of  whom  says  that  the  Chaldeans  served  among  the 
Assyrians  who  went  against  Greece  in  Xerxes*  army, 
under  Otaspes,  son  of  Artachaeus.^  The  Chaldeans 
of  whom  Xenophon  speaks^  were  near  the  Black  Sea 
and  may  possibly  have  been  the  descendants  of  the 
Chaldeans  of  Bit-Yakin  whom  Sargon  carried  away 
and  settled  in  Kummuh.  The  next  writer  to  speak  of 
the  southern  Chaldeans  is  Berosus,  himself  a  Chaldean 
priest  w  ho  lived  in  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great. 
In  his  Chaldean  History,  he  speaks  of  a  great  number  of 
people  as  inhabiting  Chaldea,  and  of  ten  early  kings 
of  the  Chaldeans  who  ruled  before  the  time  of  Abraham, 
and  of  the  Chaldean  language,  and  of  Chaldean  kings 
beginning  with  Nabonasar.^  He  says  further  that 
Nebuchadnezzar  exceeded  in  his  exploits  all  that  had 
reigned  before  him  in  Babylon  and  Chaldea  and  that 
his  father,  Nabopolassar,  was  king  of  Babylon  and  of  the 
Chaldeans,  s  Strabo,  who  was  born  about  54  B.  c,  says 
in  his  Geography^  that  there  was  a  tribe  of  Chaldeans 
and  a  district  of  Babylonia  inhabited  by  them  near 
the  Persian  Gulf;  and  further,  that  Babylonia  was 
bounded  on  the  south  by  the  Persian  Gulf  and  the 
Chaldeans.''  Again,  he  says  that  the  Babylonians 
and  the  nation  of  the  Chaldeans  possessed  the  country 
at  the  mouth  of  the  Euphrates.^  Again,  he  speaks  of 
a  city  called  Gerra  in  a  deep  gulf  inhabited  by  Chaldean 
fugitives  from  Babylon,  ^  and  of  the  marsh  lands  of  the 
Chaldeans  made  by  the  overflowing  of  the  Euphrates. '° 

'  468  B.  c,  Fragments,  564.  •  Bk.  VII,  63. 

s  Bk.  IV,  3.  -»  See  Cory,  Fragments,  pp.  21-36. 

5  Josephus;  Contra  Apion.,  i,  19.  ^  Ek.  XVI,  i.  "^  Id. 

8  Id.,  xvi,  3.  9  Id,  "  Id.,  xvi,  4. 


The  Chaldeans  329 

Josephus,  in  his  Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  ^  calls  Nebuchad- 
nezzar "king  of  Babylon  and  Chaldea,"  and  speaks  of 
the  "kings  of  Chaldea.'*^  Alexander  Polyhistor,  who 
lived  in  the  second  century  B.C.,  speaks  of  Saracus  king 
of  the  Chaldeans,  and  of  Nabopolassar  who  obtained 
the  empire  of  the  Chaldeans.  ^  Polyhistor  states,  also, 
that  after  the  deluge,  Evixius  held  possession  of  the 
country  of  the  Chaldeans  during  the  period  of  four 
fieri;  that  49  kings  of  the  Chaldeans  ruled  Babylon  for 
458  years;  that  there  was  a  king  of  the  Chaldeans 
whose  name  was  Phulus  (Pul);  that  Sardanapalus 
the  Chaldean  reigned  21  years;  and  that  Neglisarus 
reigned  over  the  Chaldeans  four  years.  ^ 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  references  that  the 
people  and  coimtry  of  the  Chaldeans  are  mentioned 
on  the  monuments  as  existing  from  about  850  B.  c, 
and  in  the  Greek  historians  as  existing  from  immedi- 
ately after  the  flood,  to  the  time  of  Christ. 

2.  Secondly,  we  shall  consider  the  use  of  the  word 
"Chaldean"  to  denote  a  priestly  class.  In  this  sense 
the  word  is  found  in  Daniel  in  the  following  places. 

(a)  In  Hebrew,  (i)  in  i,  4,  where  it  is  said  that  the 
king  of  Babylon  commanded  the  master  of  his  eimuchs 
to  teach  certain  Jewish  youths  "the  language  and  the 
tongue  of  the  Chaldeans." 

(2)  In  ii,  2,  "the  king  commanded  to  call  the 
magicians,  and  the  enchanters,  and  the  sorcerers,  and 
the  Chaldeans,  for  to  tell  the  king  his  dreams." 

(3)  In  ii,  4,  the  Chaldeans  speak  to  the  king  "in 
the  Aramaic  language." 

(b)  In  Aramaic,  (i)  in  ii,  5,  "The  king  answered 
and  said  to  the  Chaldeans. " 

'  Bk.  X,  chapter  ix,  7.  » Id.  X,  chapter  x,  2. 

3  Cory:  Fragments,  p.  59.  *  Id.,  63. 


330  The  Book  of  Daniel 

(2)  In  ii,  10,  *'Tlie  Chaldeans  answered  before 
the  king  and  said,  There  is  not  a  man  upon  the  earth 
that  can  show  the  king's  matter,  forasmuch  as  no  king, 
lord,  or  ruler,  hath  asked  such  a  thing  of  any  magician, 
or  enchanter,  or  Chaldean."  y^ 

(3)  In  iii,  8,  "Certain  Chaldeans  came  near 
and  brought  accusation  against  the  Jews.'* 

(4)  In  iv,  7,  Nebuchadnezzer  says,  "Then  came  in 
the  magicians,  the  enchanters,  the  Chaldeans,  and  the 
soothsayers ;  and  I  told  the  dream  before  them. " 

(5)  In  V,  7,  "The  king  [Belshazzar]  cried  aloud  to 
bring  in  the  enchanters,  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  sooth- 
sayers. The  king  spake  and  said  to  the  wise  men  of 
Babylon, "  etc. 

(6)  In  V,  II,  12,  the  queen  says  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar had  made  Daniel  "master  of  the  magicians, 
enchanters,  Chaldeans,  and  soothsayers;  forasmuch  as 
an  excellent  spirit,  and  knowledge,  and  understanding, 
interpreting  of  dreams,  and  showing  of  dark  sentences, 
and  dissolving  of  doubts,  were  found  in  the  same 
Daniel." 

In  the  classical  writers,  it  is  used  in  this  sense  first  by 
Herodotus,  who  flourished  from  464  to  424  B.C.;  that 
is,  contemporaneously  with  the  whole  reign  of  Arta- 
xerxes  I,  called  Longimanus,  the  successor  of  Xerxes 
the  son  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  It  will  be  noted  that 
Herodotus  died  about  one  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  Cambyses  the  son  of  Cyrus,  and  little  more 
than  a  century  after  the  death  of  the  Daniel  who  is 
the  hero  and  supposed  author  of  our  book.  Herodo- 
tus never  mentions  a  Chaldean  people  save  once, 
and  that  incidentally;  but  he  does  speak  at  length 
of  the  Chaldean  priests.  His  statements  are  as 
follows: 


The  Chaldeans  331 

In  the  middle  of  each  division  of  the  city  of  Babylon, 
fortified  buildings  were  erected,  in  one  of  which  was  the 
precinct  of  Jupiter  Bel,  which  in  my  time  was  still  in  exist- 
ence. In  the  midst  of  this  precinct  was  a  tower  of  eight 
emplacements  and  in  the  uppermost  of  these  a  spacious 
temple  in  which  was  a  large  couch  handsomely  furnished, 
but  no  statue ;  nor  did  any  mortal  pass  the  night  there  except 
only  a  native  woman,  chosen  by  the  god  out  of  the  whole 
nation,  as  the  Chaldeans,  who  are  priests  of  this  deity,  say. 
These  same  priests  assert,  though  I  cannot  credit  what  they 
say,  that  the  god  himself  comes  to  this  temple.  There  is, 
also,  another  temple  below,  within  the  precinct  at  Babylon; 
in  it  is  a  large  golden  statue  of  Jupiter  erected,  and  near  it  is 
placed  a  large  table  of  gold,  the  throne  also  and  the  step  are 
of  gold,  which  together  weigh  800  talents  as  the  Chaldeans 
affirm.  Outside  the  temple  is  a  golden  altar  and  another 
large  altar  where  full-grown  sheep  are  sacrificed;  for  on  the 
golden  altar  only  sucklings  may  be  offered.  On  the  great 
altar  the  Chaldeans  consume  yearly  a  thousand  talents 
of  frankincense  when  they  celebrate  the  festival  of  this  god. 
There  was  also  at  that  time  within  the  precincts  of  this 
temple  a  statue  of  solid  gold,  twelve  cubits  high.  I,  indeed, 
did  not  see  it.     I  only  relate  what  is  said  by  the  Chaldeans. 

Ctesias,  the  Greek  physician  of  Artaxerxes  II,  who 
wrote  about  400  B.  c,  speaks  of  the  Chaldeans  as  hav- 
ing hindered  Darius  Hystaspis  from  viewing  the  dead 
body  of  Sphendidates  the  Magian.'  Aristotle,  who 
was  the  tutor  of  Alexander  the  Great,  mentions  the 
Chaldean  astrologers.  ^ 

Arrian,  in  his  great  work  on  The  Expedition  of  Alex- 
ander, has  much  to  say  about  these  Chaldean  priests. 
This  Arrian  was  a  Greek  historian,  a  Roman  general, 
prefect  of  Cappadocia  under  Hadrian,  who  reigned  from 
117  to  138  A.D.     He  was  conversant  with  philosophy, 

»  See  Fragments  by  Bahr,  pp.  68  and  140.  *  See  Frag.^  30. 


33^  The  Book  of  Daniel  /^ 

/ 

being  a  pupil  of  Epictetus  and  publisher  of  his  lectures. 
He  wrote  a  treatise  on  military  tactics,  another  on  the 
geography  of  the  Black  Sea,  and  another  on  that  of  the 
Red  Sea,  and  was  a  friend  and  pbrrespondent  of  Pliny 
the  Younger.  He  was,  therefore,  well  fitted  to  write  a 
history  of  the  expedition  of  Alexander  against  Persia. 
This  he  has  done  in  seven  volumes  which  he  claims 
in  his  proem  to  be  based  upon  a  work  by  Aristobulus,  who 
marched  along  with  Alexander;  and  on  another  work  by 
Ptolemy  Lagus,  who  not  only  marched  with  him,  but, 
as  Arrian  says,  ''since  he  was  a  king,  it  would  have 
been  shameful  for  him  to  lie."  Both,  he  says,  wrote 
without  expectation  of  any  reward,  since  Alexander 
was  already  dead  when  they  composed  their  memoirs. 
So  Arrian  pronounces  them  both  most  worthy  of 
credence.  Trained  geographer,  philosopher,  historian, 
politician,  general,  and  writer,  as  he  was,  he  might  well 
be  trusted  to  have  transcribed  the  essence  at  least  of  his 
authorities;  and  having  proclaimed  and  praised  the 
truthfulness  and  trustworthiness  of  his  sources,  it 
may  be  supposed  that  he  tried  himself  also  to  be  truth- 
ful. Senator,  consul,  and  prefect  of  Rome,  it  is  alto- 
gether probable  that  he  was  a  capable,  as  well  as  an 
experienced,  judge  of  documentary,  as  well  as  oral, 
testimony. 

Arrian,  then,  says  with  reference  to  the  Chaldeans,  as 
follows: 

Alexander,  having  hastened  from  Arbela,  went  forward 
straight  to  Babylon;  and  when  he  was  not  far  from  Babylon 
he  led  his  army  drawn  up  in  battle  array;  and  the  Baby- 
lonians in  a  body  met  him  with  their  priests  and  rulers 
bearing  gifts  as  each  one  was  able,  and  surrendering  the 
city,  and  the  acropolis,  and  the  treasure.  And  Alexander, 
having  come  to  Babylon,  gave  orders  to  build  again  the 


The  Chaldeans  333 

temples  which  Xerxes  had  destroyed,  both  the  altar  and 
also  the  temple  of  Bel,  who  is  the  god  whom  the  Babylon- 
ians deem  especially  worthy  of  honor.  There  indeed,  also, 
he  met  the  Chaldeans,  and  whatever  seemed  good  to  the 
Chaldeans  with  reference  to  religious  matters  in  Babylon  he 
did;  both  other  things,  and  to  Bel,  also,  he  sacrificed  as 
these  directed.' 

Later,  he  says  that  when  Alexander  was  returning  from 
India  and  was  marching  to  Babylon, 

the  wise  men  of  the  Chaldeans  met  him  and,  drawing  him 
aside  from  his  companions,  besought  him  to  hold  up  his 
advance  on  Babylon;  for  an  oracle  had  come  to  them  from 
the  god  Bel  that  his  going  to  Babylon  at  that  time  would  not 
be  for  his  good.  Alexander  answered  them:  "Who  guesses 
well,  is  the  best  prophet. "  Whereupon  the  Chaldeans  said, 
"Do  thou,  oh  king!  not  go  to  the  west  nor  come  hither  lead- 
ing an  army  of  occupation ;  but  go  rather  to  the  east."  (Bk. 
VII,  16.) 

He  says  further  that 

Alexander  was  suspicious  of  the  Chaldeans,  because  at 
that  time  they  managed  the  affairs  of  Bel,  and  he  thought 
that  the  so-called  prophecy  was  meant  for  their  profit 
rather  than  for  his  good.*  Refusing  to  follow  their  advice 
but  attempting  to  evade  the  consequences  predicted,  he 
nevertheless  did  as  their  prediction  had  implied  that  he 
woidd.^ 

Berosus,  our  next  witness,  informs  us  concerning 
himself,  that  he  lived  in  the  age  of  Alexander  the  son  of 
Philip.  He  speaks  of  the  writings  of  the  Chaldean  s^ 
and  of  their  wisdom, ^  and  "of  a  certain  man  among 
them  in  the  tenth  generation  after  the  deluge  who  was 

» Bk.  Ill,  16.  '  Id.,  17.  5  Id.,  21-27. 

4  Cory,  Fragments f  p.  26.  '  U.,  32. 


334  The  Book  of  Daniel 

renowned  for  his  justice  and  great  exploits  and  for  his 
skill  in  the  celestial  sciences  " ; '  and  of  their  having  been 
accurately  acquainted  only  since  the  time  of  Nabonassar 
with  the  heavenly  motions.^  He  says  that  the  affairs 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  had  been  faithfully  conducted  by 
Chaldeans  and  that  the  principal  person  among  them 
had  preserved  the  kingdom  for  him  after  the  death 
of  his  father  and  before  his  return  from  Palestine.  ^ 

Megasthenes,  who  lived  and  occupied  important 
official  positions  under  Seleucus  Nicator,  wrote  about 
300  B.C.,  that  the  Chaldeans  related  certain  facts  about 
Nebuchadnezzar's  having  been  preserved  by  some  god, 
so  as  to  foretell  to  them  the  downfall  of  Babylon  through 
the  Medes  and  Persians.  ^ 

Abydenus,  a  pupil  of  Berosus,  speaks  of  Pythagoras, 
who  lived  about  the  time  of  Daniel,  as  a  "follower  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans.  *'5 

Strabo,  who  flourished  from  54  B.C.,  one  of  the  most 
reliable  of  ancient  writers,  says  that 

in  Babylonia  there  was  a  dwelling  place  for  the  native 
philosophers,  called  Chaldeans,  who  are  for  the  most  part 
concerned  with  astronomy;  but  some  also  are  given  to 
casting  nativities,  which  the  others  do  not  permit.  There 
is  also  a  tribe  of  the  Chaldeans  and  a  district  of  Babylonia 
near  to  the  Arabs  and  to  the  Persian  Sea.  And  there  are  of 
the  Chaldean  astronomers  several  kinds.  For  some  are 
called  Orchenoi,  and  others  Borsippenoi,  and  there  are 
others  more,  as  it  were,  in  sects,  holding  different  dogmas 
concerning  the  same  things.^ 

Diodorus  Siculus,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Caesar 
and  Augustus,  in  his  History,  Book  II,  9,  says  that 

^  Id.,  16.  >  Id.  s  Id.,  89. 

^  Cory:  Fragments,  44-45.  s  Cory,  65,  ^  XVI,  I. 


The  Chaldeans  335 

*'  the  Chaldeans  made  observations  of  the  stars  from  the 
tower  of  the  temple  of  Jupiter,  whom  the  Babylonians 
call  Bel. "     Again,  he  says  in  chapter  24,  that 

Belesus,  who  understood  how  to  destroy  the  hegemony 
of  the  Assyrians,  was  the  most  notable  of  the  priests  whom 
the  Babylonians  call  Chaldeans.  Having,  then,  the  great- 
est experience  in  astrology  and  soothsaying,  he  foretold 
the  future  to  the  multitude  just  as  it  fell  out. 

In  chapter  29,  he  says 

that  it  does  not  seem  out  of  place  for  him  to  narrate  a  few 
words  concerning  those  who  were  called  in  Babylon  Chal- 
deans and  their  antiquity,  that  he  may  omit  nothing  worthy 
of  mention.  The  Chaldeans,  then,  being  the  most  ancient 
Babylonians  have  a  position  in  the  determination  of  the 
policy  of  government  something  like  that  of  the  priests  of 
Egypt.  For  being  assigned  to  the  service  of  the  gods  they 
pass  their  whole  life  in  philosophizing,  having  the  greatest 
glory  in  astrology.  They  pay  much  attention,  also,  to  sooth- 
saying, making  predictions  concerning  future  events,  and 
purifications,  and  sacrifices,  and  with  various  kinds  of  incan- 
tations they  attempt  to  bring  about  the  avoidance  of  evil 
and  the  accomplishment  of  good.  And  they  have  experi- 
ence also  in  divination  by  birds  and  show  the  interpretation 
of  dreams  and  omens.  Not  unwisely,  also,  do  they  act  in 
matters  concerning  hieroscopy  and  are  supposed  accurately 
to  hit  the  mark.  This  philosophy  is  handed  down  from 
father  to  son  in  a  race  which  is  freed  from  all  other  services. 

Finally,  Quintus  Curtius  Rufus,  probably  of  the 
second  century  a.d.,  says  that  early  in  the  expedition  of 
Alexander  "The  Chaldeans  had  explained  a  singular 
dream  of  Phamabazus  to  mean  that  the  empire  of  the 
Persians  would  pass  over  to  the  Greeks."'     Further 

»  See  the  Life  and  Expedition  of  Alexander  the  Great,  III,  iii,  6. 


33^  The  Book  of  Daniel 


on,  he  says  that  "as  Alexander ^as  approaching  Baby- 
lon, he  was  met  by  Bagophanes,  the  custodian  of  the 
citadel,  who  was  followed  by  gifts  of  herds  of  sheep  and 
horses ;  and  next  to  these  came  the  Magi,  singing  their 
native  song  according  to  their  custom.  After  these, 
the  Chaldeans  and  not  only  the  seers  (priests)  of  the 
Babylonians,  but  even  the  skilled  workmen,  advanced 
"with  the  harps  of  their  own  class;  the  last  mentioned 
were  wont  to  sing  the  praises  of  the  kings ;  the  Chaldeans 
to  manifest  the  movements  of  the  stars,  and  the  fixed 
changes  of  the  seasons.  Then,  last  of  all,  marched 
the  Babylonian  horsemen,  with  their  own  peculiar  dress 
and  with  special  horse-trappings,  required  more  for 
luxury  than  for  magnificence.  '*^     Further  he  says  that 

"  when  Alexander,  on  his  return  from  India,  was  300  stadia 
from  the  city  [Babylon],  the  seers  warned  him  not  to  enter 
since  there  was  a  portent  of  danger.  But  he  scorned 
their  predictions  as  being  vain  and  mere  fabrications. 
Therefore  when  the  envoys  had  been  given  audience  he  set 
sail  for  the  land  of  the  Arabs,  laughing  at  the  Chaldeans, 
who  predicted  danger  in  the  city."* 

Afterwards,  when  Alexander  was  brought  dead  to  Baby- 
lon, it  was  the  Babylonians  who  "looked  down,  some 
from  the  walls,  others  each  from  the  roof  on  his  own 
house,  to  see  the  funeral  cortege  pass  through  the 
streets"; 3  but  the  Egyptians  and  Chaldeans  were 
**  ordered  to  attend  the  dead  body  in  their  own 
fashion.  "4 

From  the  above  extracts,  it  is  evident  that  Quintus 
Cur  tins,  whatever  may  have  been  the  sources  of  his 
information  as  to  the  life  of  Alexander,  sought  to  make 
a  clear  distinction  between  the  Babylonians  and  the 

^Td.,V,{,4.     »  JJ.,  X,  iv,  II.      3  7J.,  X,  V,  14.      47J.,  X,  X,  26. 


The  Chaldeans  337 

Chaldeans  who  were  in  Babylon  at  the  time  of  Alex- 
ander's conquest  of  Persia.  According  to  him,  there- 
fore, the  former  were  the  people  and  the  latter  were  the 
priestly  class  as  early  as  330  B.C. 

Summing  up,  then,  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  clas- 
sical writers  who  have  written  about  Babylon,  we  find 
that  they  make  a  distinction  between  the  Babylonian, 
or  Chaldean,  people  or  peoples  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Chaldean  priests  or  astrologers  on  the  other;  and  that 
this  distinction  is  held  by  them  to  have  existed  from  the 
earliest  times  to  the  time  in  which  they  respectively 
wrote. 

II.  We  shall  consider  together  the  assumptions  as 
to  the  origin,  meaning,  and  use  of  the  word  Chaldean 
upon  the  Babylonian,  monuments. 

It  may  justly  be  asked  in  view  of  all  the  references  in 
the  classical  writers  of  Greece  and  Rome  to  the  Chal- 
deans as  the  wise  men  of  Babylon,  if  there  is  no  evidence 
on  the  monuments  to  corroborate  the  other  authorities. 
If  there  were  no  evidence  on  the  monuments  from 
Babylon,  we  must  remember,  that  the  case  would  be 
the  same  as  to  the  Chaldeans  as  astrologers  that  it  is  as 
to  the  Chaldeans  as  a  nation.  But  we  are  in  better 
case  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  term  to  denote  as- 
trologers, than  we  are  with  regard  to  its  use  to  denote  a 
nation.  For  we  are  still  inclined  to  believe  that  a  good 
argument  can  be  made  in  favor  of  the  galdu  of  the  in- 
scriptions being  the  same  as  the  Chaldean  priest  of 
classical  sources  and  of  the  Chaldeans  of  Daniel.  It 
may  be  argued: 

First,  the  galdu  in  Babylonian  would  according  to  the 
laws  of  phonetic  change  become  kaldu  in  Assyrian,  Chal- 
daios  in  Greek,  and  kasday  in  Hebrew  and  Aramaic. 
The  change  of  g  to  ^  is  found  in  the  word  e-galy  "great 


/ 
33^  The  Book  of  Daniel 

house,"  "palace,"  or  "temple,"  which  becomes  e-kal  in 
Assyrian,  and  hekal  in  Hebrew.  Compare  also  the 
Greek  kamelos,  "camel, "  in  Assyrian,  gammalu,^ 

The  change  from  /  to  ^  before  d  is  found  in  the  He- 
brew Kasdim  for  the  Assyrian  Kaldiy  from  an  original 
Babylonian  Kaldu  or  Kasdu.  After  the  analogy  of 
the  change  from  Kaldu  to  Kasd  the  Hebrew  would 
change  galdu  to  kasd.  K  in  Assyrian  and  Hebrew 
frequently  is  represented  by  ch  in  Greek  and  Latin. 
So  that  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  for  denying  that 
galdu  might  be  Chaldean,  as  far  as  the  phonetics  are 
concerned. 

Moreover,  it  shows  an  ingenuity  almost  surpassing 
belief  in  a  writer  of  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
B.  C,  who  derived  from  the  Greeks  the  notion  of  what 
the  Chaldaioi  were,  to  suppose  that  he  would  deliber- 
ately change  Kaldim  to  Kasdim.  This  was  a  law  of 
change  in  Babylonian,  Assyrian,  and  Hebrew,  but  not 
as  between  Greek  and  Hebrew,  or  Greek  and  Aramaic.  * 

The  Aramaic  versions  and  dialects  outside  of  Daniel 
consistently  use  Kaldi  to  denote  the  astrologers  and 
Kasdi  to  denote  the  people  of  Chaldea.^  The  author 
of  Daniel,  forsooth,  was  the  only  writer  who  confounded 
the  distinction  between  them!  It  seems  more  likely 
that  an  author  living  in  Babylon  in  a  time  when  words 
which  had  a  sibilant,  or  an  /,  before  a  dental  were  often 

^  This  change  of  Assyrio-Babylonian  g  to  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  h  is 
not  so  frequent  as  the  change  of  k  to  g.  The  latter  is  found  in  Mukina — 
Mugin;  Sharukin — Sargon;  Tikulti — Tiglath;  Mannuki — Manug;  Sha- 
kan-Sagan. 

'  In  words  derived  from  the  Greek  which  have  an  /  before  a  dental,  the 
New  Hebrew,  the  Syriac,  and  the  Aramaic  of  the  Talmuds,  never 
change  the  /  to  ^  or  sh.  See  Dalman  Aram-neuhehr .  Worterbuch,  pp.  53, 
188,  226,  228,  320,  321,  and  364;  and  Brockelmann's  Lex.  Syr.,  in  loc. 

5  See  dictionaries  of  Levy  and  Jastrow,  suh  verbis. 


The  Chaldeans  339 

written  in  both  ways  (as  iltu,  ishtu;  iltantsh,  ishtanish) 
would  have  written  Kasdim  for  Kaldim,  than  that  an 
author  Hving  in  the  second  century  in  Palestine  and 
deriving  a  word  and  its  meaning  from  the  Greek  should 
have  changed  Id  to  sd,  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the 
Greek  in  words  derived  from  the  Aramaic  languages, 
and  of  the  Arameans  and  Hebrews  in  words  derived 
from  the  Greek. ' 

Secondly,  that  old  Accadian  double  words  like  gal 
and  du  were  often  taken  over  into  Semitic,  still  preserv- 
ing the  double  sense  of  the  original  compound  words, 
may  be  abundantly  shown.  E.  g.,  ^  =  "house,*'  gal  = 
''great,"  e-gal  =  " palace''  (Hebrew,  "temple,"  also); 
^  =  "house,"  ^wr  =  "land"  or  "mountain,"  e-kur^ 
"temple  of  the  land,  or  mountain";  dup  =  " tablet j'' 
sar='' writer, ' '  dupsar  = ' ' writer  of  tablets ' ' ;  and  many 
others. 

Thirdly,  that  the  meaning  of  galdu  can  be  reconciled 
with  the  duties  of  the  Chaldeans  is  certainly  probable; 
at  least,  we  can  see  no  sufficient  reason  for  denying 
on  this  groimd  that  Gal-du  and  Chaldean  are  the  same. 
in.  The  last  assumption,  that  is,  that  "the  absence 
of  the  term  from  the  Babylonian  monuments^  would 
prove  that  it  could  not  have  been  used  by  the  Aramean 
and  Hebrew  writers,"  is  a  most  unjustifiable  asser- 
tion. We  could  multiply  analogies  to  show  that  writers 
in  foreign  languages  often  use  terms  when  speaking  of  a 
given  nation  and  its  affairs,  which  a  writer  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  nation  spoken  of  would  never  use.  For 
example  and  in  point.  Dr.  Meinhold,  in  his  statement  of 
this  very  objection  to  the  book  of  Daniel  of  which  we 

»  Cf.  Brockelmann's  Lex.  Syr.,  pp.  17-21,  29,  and  Dalman's  Aram.- 
neuhebr.  Worterbuch.,  29-37. 

»  That  is,  in  monuments  written  in  the  Babylonian  language. 


340  The  Book  of  Daniel 

are  now  speaking,  uses  the  term  *  *  Magian  "  as  a  designa- 
tion of  the  wise  men  of  Babylon.  Yet  this  word  never 
occurs  on  any  Babylonian  monimient  and  is  never  found 
in  Babylonian  at  all  except  in  the  Babylonian  recension 
of  the  Behistun  Inscription  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  There 
Darius  used  it  correctly  to  describe  the  Magian  usurper 
Gumatu,  or  Smerdis.  But  why  should  Dr.  Meinhold 
call  the  Babylonian  wise  men  by  this  Medo-Persian 
word?  Simply  because  the  term  has  been  adopted 
into  the  German  language  as  a  designation  of  a  class  of 
heathen  priests  practicing  certain  arts.  So,  also,  the 
Arameans  and  Hebrews  probably  used  the  word  Chal- 
dean to  denote  a  certain  class  of  wise  men  in  Babylon, 
.who  practiced  certain  arts.  They  may  have  derived 
the  term  from  galdu,  **the  master-builder, "  or  from  the 
Kaldu,  the  conquering  tribe  of  Nabopolassar,  because 
of  certain  arts  practised  by  them.  The  term  Chaldean 
to  denote  this  class  may  not  have  been  used  in  Babylon- 
ian at  all  any  more  than  Magian  was.  But  will  anyone 
tell  us  by  what  term  this  class  should  have  been  desig- 
nated by  an  Aramean  writer  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.  ? 
If  we  go  to  the  Syriac  for  information,  no  term  will  be 
found  that  would  cover  such  a  class  of  star-gazers  and 
dream  interpreters  and  fortune  tellers  as  the  Chaldeans 
of  Daniel  probably  were.  No  other  Aramaic  dialect 
will  help  us  to  a  term.  The  ancient  versions  suggest  no 
other  equivalent  designation  to  take  its  place.  Pray, 
what  term  would  the  critics  of  Daniel  suggest  as  a  substi- 
tute? The  ancient  Hebrews,  the  Arameans,  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  early  and  late,  all  use  the  word  Chaldean 
in  some  form  or  other  to  denote  this  special  class  of 
Babylonian  wise  men.  It  is  appropriate,  distinctive, 
and  general,  in  its  meaning  and  use.  As  to  its  origin 
and  antiquity  no  one  knows  for  certain  anything  except 


The  Chaldeans  341 

negatively.  And  let  it  be  remembered  that  no  amount 
of  negative  evidence  from  the  Babylonian  can  ever 
countervail  the  positive  evidence  to  be  derived  from  the 
fact  of  the  use  of  this  term  in  the  Aramaic  of  the  book 
of  Daniel. 

Conclusion 

The  conclusion  of  the  discussion  about  the  use  of  the 
word ' '  Chaldean ' '  by  the  author  of  Daniel  is  that  there  is 
no  evidence  to  show  that  he  does  not  employ  the  term 
consistently  and  that  it  may  not  have  been  used  in 
Aramaic  as  a  designation  of  a  class  of  Babylonian  wise 
men,  or  priests,  as  early  as  the  sixth  century  B.C. 

Excursus  on  the  Chaldeans 

All  are  agreed  that  the  sign  gal  may  mean  in  Semitic 
Babylonian  rahu,  "great,  chief."  The  sign  du  denotes 
the  idea  of  "making,"  of  "  building, "  or  "constructing," 
being  used  in  Assyrian  for  such  words  as  hantiy  epesu, 
sakanu,  zakapUy  elu,  emu,  nadu,  pataku,  and  ritu.  The 
compotmd  gal-du  might,  therefore,  be  rendered  ''rab  ba- 
nie  in  Babylonian,  i.  e.,"  chief  of  the  builders,"  or 
"constructors,"  and  the  plural  would  be  "the  chiefs 
of  the  constructors."  So  far  all  interpreters  would 
probably  agree.  It  differs  from  dim-gal =banu-rabu 
which  means  "chief  builder";  just  as  bitu  rabu,  "great 
house,"  differs  from  rab  biti,  "major  domo,"  or  "master 
of  the  house. " 

The  standard  passages  to  determine  the  use  of  dim- 
gal  are  the  Nies  inscription  of  Sargon,  ^  the  Prism  in- 
scription of  Sennacherib,  Col.  vi,  40-46,  the  building 
inscriptions  of  Esarhaddon,  and  the  Zikhurat  inscrip- 
tion of  Nabopolassar,  Col.  ii,  14-37.     The  first  reads : 

«  See  the  Yale  Oriental  Series,  Babylonian  Texts,  i,  62. 


342  The  Book  of  Daniel 

The  king  says  that  "  according  to  the  command  of  the 
god  Mur  the  dim-gal4a  and  ummanu  knowing  the  command 
(or  work),  with  bright  bricks  he  (i.  e.,  Sargon)  elevated  its 
turrets  {i.  e.,  of  the  temple  of  Eanna)  and  completed  its 
work."' 

The  Prism  inscription  of  Sennacherib  reads: 

In  a  favorite  month,  on  an  auspicious  day,  I  caused  to  be 
made  on  this  foundation  in  the  wisdom  of  my  heart  a 
palace  of  ^^7w-stone  and  cedar-wood  in  the  style  of  the 
land  of  the  Hittites  and  as  the  seat  of  my  lordship,  by  the 
art  of  skillful  master-builders  (tim-kal-li-e)  ^  sl  lofty  palace 
in  the  style  of  Assyria  which  far  surpassed  the  former  one 
in  size  and  ornamentation. 

Esarhaddon  mentions  them  twice.  In  the  first 
passage,  he  says  **The  wise  master-builders  {dim-gal-li) 
who  form  the  plan,  I  assembled  and  laid  the  foundation 
of  Esaggil  and  fixed  its  cornerstone  ...  I  made  its 
measurements  according  to  its  earlier  plans. '*^  In  the 
second  passage  he  speaks  of  *'(the  wise  architects)  who 
formed  the  plan."^ 

In  Nabopolassar's  Zikkurat  inscription  we  read: 

By  the  commission  of  Ea,  by  the  advice  of  Marduk,  by 
the  command  of  Nebo  and  Nerba,  in  the  great-heartedness 
which  God  my  creator  created  within  me,  in  my  great  cham- 
ber I  called  a  council.  My  skilled  workmen  (lit.  the  wise 
sons  of  ummani)  I  sent  out.  I  took  a  reed  and  with  a  meas- 
uring  reed   I   measured   the   dimensions.      The   master- 

» Ina  shipir  Hi  Mur  amel  Dim-gal-la  u  um-me-e  (i.e.,  ummanu)  ^  mudie 
shipri  ina  Wbitti  ellitim  reshushu  ullimi  ushaklil  shipirshu. 

'  Co!,  iv,  K.  192,  Rev.  lines  14-17.  See  Meissner-Rost,  Bauin- 
schriflen  Asarhaddons,  B.A.  iii,  246-247.  »  Id.,  K.  271 1,  32. 

I  See  Brunnow's  Classified  List,  No.  3912. 


The  Chaldeans  343 

btiilders  {ameluti  dim-gal-e)  fixed  the  limits  and  established 
the  boundaries.  According  to  the  advice  of  Shamash, 
Ramman,  and  Marduk  I  made  decisions  and  in  my  heart  I 
kept  them.  I  treasured  in  memory  the  measiirements. 
The  great  gods  by  a  decision  caused  me  to  know  the  future 
days. 

Before  discussing  these  passages,  we  shall  give  two 
more,  which  do  not  mention  the  dimgals,  but  do  speak 
of  the  wise  ummani  and  the  fortunate  day  and  month. 
These  are  both  from  the  time  of  Nabunaid.  The  first 
reads  as  follows: 

The  pinnacles  of  the  temple  [of  the  stm-god  of  Sippara] 
had  bowed  down  and  its  walls  were  leaning  [?].  I  saw  it 
and  was  much  afraid  and  terrified.  In  order  to  lay  aright 
the  foundation,  to  establish  the  boundaries  of  his  temple,  to 
build  a  holy  place  and  chambers  suitable  for  his  godhead,  I 
prayed  daily  to  him  and  yearly  brought  offerings,  and  sought 
from  him  my  mandate  {purussia  aprussu).  Shamash,  the 
exalted  lord,  from  of  old  had  called  me;  Shamash  and 
Ramman  had  laid  upon  me  the  grace  of  the  fulfillment  of  my 
righteous  mandate,  of  the  accomplishment  of  my  mission, 
and  the  establishment  of  the  temple.  I  trusted  entirely 
to  the  righteous  mandate,  which  cannot  be  gainsaid,  and 
grasped  the  hand  of  Shamash,  my  lord,  and  caused  him  to 
dwell  in  another  house.  Right  and  left,  before  and  behind, 
I  searched  the  holy  place  and  the  heart  of  the  chambers.  I 
assembled  the  elders  of  the  city,  the  sons  of  Babylon,  the 
wise  mathematicians,  the  inmates  of  the  house  of  Mummu 
[  =  the  dwelling  place  of  Ea,  the  god  of  wisdom]  the  guardian 
of  the  decree  {piristi)  of  the  great  gods,  establisher  of  the 
royal  person  [?].  I  ordered  them  to  the  council  and  thus  I 
spoke  to  them :  Search  for  the  old  foundation ;  seek  for  the 
sanctuary  of  Shamash,  the  judge,  that  I  may  make  an  endur- 
ing house  for  Shamash  and  for  Malkatu,  my  lords.  With 
hearty  prayer  to  Shamash,  my  lord,  with  supplications  to 


344  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  great  gods,  all  the  sons  of  the  wise  men  {ummanu)  laid 
bare  the  old  foundation.  .  .  .  With  joy  and  rejoicing  I 
laid  on  the  old  platform,  I  strengthened  its  underground 
supports  and  raised  its  pinnacles  like  a  lofty  peak.^ 

The  second  reads  thus: 

In  the  tenth  year,  in  the  days  of  my  happy  reign,  in  my 
enduring  kingdom,  which  Shamash  loves,  Shamash  the 
great  lord  thought  on  the  seat  [of  his  heart's  desire],  he 
wanted  to  see  the  top  of  the  tower  of  his  habitation  (?) 
raised  higher  than  it  had  been  before.  .  .  .  He  com- 
manded me,  Nabunaid,  the  king,  his  care-taker,  to  restore 
Ebarra  to  its  former  place,  to  make  it  as  in  the  days  of  old 
the  seat  of  his  heart's  desire.  At  the  word  of  Marduk,  the 
great  lord,  the  winds  were  let  loose,  the  floods  came,  swept 
away  the  debris,  uncovered  the  foundations,  and  revealed 
their  contour. 

Nabunaid,  having  been  commanded  to  restore  the 
temple,  says: 

I  raised  my  hands  and  prayed  to  Marduk;  0  Bell  chief 
of  the  gods,  prince  Marduk,  without  thee  no  dwelling  is 
founded,  no  boundaries  are  prepared.  Without  thee,  what 
can  anyone  do  ?  Lord,  at  thy  exalted  command  may  I  do 
what  seemeth  good  to  thee.  To  build  the  holy  place  of 
Shamash,  Ramman,  and  Nergal, — even  that  temple  I  sought, 
and  a  gracious  oracle  for  the  length  of  my  days  and  the 
building  of  the  temple  they  wrote.  .  .  .  Sufficient  grace 
for  the  peace  of  my  days  ...  he  fixed  in  my  commission 
itertiia)  .  .  .  the  workmen  {ummanati)  of  Shamash  and 
Marduk  ...  to  build  Ebarra,  the  glorious  sanctuary,  the 
lofty  chamber,  I  sent.  A  wise  workman  {ummanu  mudu) 
sought  in  the  place  where  the  foundation  had  appeared,  and 
recognized  the  insignia  {simatlm).     In  a  favorable  month, 

^  KB.  iii,  ii,  110-112.  «KB.  iii,  ii,  90,  91. 


The  Chaldeans  345 

on  a  lucky  day,  I  began  to  lay  the  bricks  of  Ebarra  .  .  . 
according  to  the  insignia  upon  (the  foundation)  of  Ham- 
murabi the  old  king.  I  rebuilt  that  temple  as  it  had  been 
before.  ^ 

From  these  passages  it  is  evident  that  the  dimgals 
made  the  measurements  and  designed  the  ornamenta- 
tions of  the  palaces  and  temples.     Arrian  tells  us  that : 

the  expenses  of  the  restoration  of  the  temple  of  Bel  which 
Alexander  had  ordered  were  to  be  met  by  the  revenues  of  the 
lands  and  treasures  which  had  been  dedicated  to  that 
god.  These  treasiu-es  had  been  placed  under  the  steward- 
ship of  the  Chaldeans,  and  had  formerly  been  used  for  the 
refitting  of  the  temple  and  the  sacrifices  which  were  offered 
to  the  god.* 

The  Chaldeans,  then,  of  the  time  of  Alexander  (whom 
Arrian  in  the  same  chapter  careftdly  distinguished 
from  the  Babylonians  who  had  been  ordered  to  clear 
away  the  dust  from  the  old  foundations),  not  merely 
prepared  the  sacrifices  and  farmed  the  revenues, 
but  directed  the  repairs  and  restorations  of  the  temple 
of  Bel. 

These  skilled  workmen,  the  wise  sons  of  the  ummani, 
these  wise  dimgals,  who  fixed  the  limits  and  established 
the  boundaries,  and  by  whose  art  {shipru,  "commis- 
sion") the  size  and  ornamentation  of  the  temples  and 
palaces  were  determined ; — all  acted  under  the  commis- 
sion {shipru)  of  Ea,  according  to  the  advice  of  Marduk 
and  the  command  of  Nebo.  As  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab 
did  all  things  according  to  the  pattern  {tahnith)  of  the 
tabernacle  and  the  pattern  of  the  instruments  ''which 
the  Lord  had  showed  them  in  the  mount,"  so,  these 

*  KB.  iii,  ii,  90-92.     See  also,  BA.  iii,  234-237. . 
'  Exped.  of  Alex.,  vii,  17. 


34^  The  Book  of  Daniel 

architects  and  artists  of  Nineveh  and  Babylon  are 
said  to  have  erected  their  buildings  after  the  commis- 
sions, the  advice,  and  the  orders,  of  the  gods.  Just 
as  God  filled  Bezaleel  with  wisdom  and  understanding 
and  knowledge  in  all  kinds  of  workmanship  and  gave 
to  everyone  who  was  wise  of  heart  a  heart  of  wisdom^ 
to  execute  the  work  of  the  tabernacle;  so,  the  dimgals 
and  ummanus  of  Sennacherib  and  Esarhaddon  and 
Nabopolassar  and  Nabunaid  are  said  to  have  had  wis- 
dom and  skill  for  their  work  from  Ea,  the  god  of  wisdom, 
and  Nebo  the  builder  of  cities,  and  Marduk  the  lord  of 
all.  These  wise  master-builders  of  the  Babylonians, 
like  the  Bezaleels  and  Aholiabs  of  the  Jews,  were  not 
building  after  their  own  patterns,  but  according  to 
those  that  had  been  revealed  to  them  by  the  chiefs  of 
the  builders,  the  Moseses,  the  Galdus,  the  Chaldeans, 
who  had  received  them  from  their  gods.  The  earthly 
temples  were  the  copies  of  the  houses  in  the  skies.  ^ 
The  men  who  delimited  the  houses  of  the  gods  in  the 
heavens;  who  fixed  the  boundaries  of  the  temples,  the 
earthly  houses  of  the  gods ;  who  determined  (as  we  shall 
see  belov/)the  horoscopes,  the  houses  of  the  nativities, 
of  men ; — these  were  the  astrologers,  call  them  in  your 
language  by  what  special  name  you  please.  The  classi- 
cal writers  and  Daniel  call  them  Chaldeans.  The  Assy- 
rio-Babyionian  dimgal  and  the  Babylonian  galdu  would 
both  be  excellent  names  to  denote  this  class  of  men,  who 
on  the  heavenward  side  studied  the  will  of  the  gods,  the 
plans  of  their  houses  and  their  destinies  for  men,  in  the 
skies;  and  on  their  earthward  side,  revealed  the  plans  of 
the  temples  and  the  destinies  of  men.  The  galdus  and 
dimgals  were  the  masters  of  the  builders,  the  chiefs  of 
the  wise  workmen,  the  master-builders,  under  whose  di- 
I  Ex.  xxxi,  i-ii.  »  Delitzsch:  HWB,  p.  654b.  . 


The  Chaldeans  347 

rection  the  ummanus  and  mashmashus  and  kali  worked 
as  subordinates, — unless,  indeed,  these  last  were 
merely  names  of  sub-classes  of  the  former.  The  Greeks 
and  Daniel,  and  the  Babylonian  contract  tablets, 
would  then  agree  in  making  frequent  mention  of  the 
genus  galdu;  whereas,  as  yet,  we  have  foimd  on  the 
astrological  tablets  the  mention  of  the  species  alone. 
An  Aramean  writer,  when  bringing  a  foreign  term  into 
his  native  language,  may  well  be  excused  for  introducing 
the  general  term;  for  it  must  be  remembered  that  no 
one  of  the  specific  Babylonian  terms  for  astrologer  has 
as  yet  been  found  in  any  Aramaic  dialect,  unless  the 
asheph,  or  ashshaphj  of  Daniel  be  classed  as  one.  Nei- 
ther mashmashUj  kalu,  barUj  nor  zimmeru^  has  ever  yet 
been  fotmd  in  Aramaic.  The  chiefs  of  the  builders, — 
the  heads  of  the  department  of  astrology,  would  be 
the  natural  ones  for  Nebuchadnezzar  to  call  to  his 
council,  just  as  Nabopolassar  is  said  above  to  have  sent 
out  his  wise  workmen  from  the  council  of  his  great 
chamber.  The  Babylonian  name  for  the  chief  of  the 
builders  is  galdu.  The  writer  of  Daniel  may  rightly 
have  called  them  in  Aramaic  Chaldeans;  inasmuch 
as  the  name  galdu  in  the  sense  of  master-builder  is 
found  on  the  Babylonian  tablets  as  early  at  least  as 
the  14th  year  of  Shamashshumukin,  king  of  Babylon, 
who  reigned  from  668  to  648  B.c.^ 

Finally,  that  hanu,  the  Babylonian  equivalent  of  the 
Sumerian  du^  **to  build,"  was  used  in  a  tropical  sense 
for  the  construction  of  other  than  material  objects 
is  evident.  For,  first,  it  often  means  "beget. "  In  this 
sense  it  is  used  of  both  gods  and  men,  and  this  in 
innumerable  cases  and  in  all  times  and  places. 

Again,  it  is  used  of  oracles  and  decisions  of  the  gods. 

'SeeKB.  iv.  i68. 


34^  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Thus  Nebo  is  called  the  hanu  pirishti,  "the  creator  of 
decisions"^  and  Damkina  the  banat  shimti,  ''creator  of 
fate*'*  and  "the  wise  king  the  creator  of  fate/*^ 

These  decisions  which  had  been  created  {hanu)  by  the 
gods  were,  doubtless,  made  known  in  the  houses  of 
decision  4  where  the  gods  decreed  the  days  of  eternity 
and  the  fate  of  one's  life.^  These  decisions,  also,  are 
said  to  have  been  revealed  to  the  haru,  or  seer,  who  was 
the  special  guardian  of  the  decrees  of  heaven  and  earth, 
to  whom  the  gods  opened  up  {petu)  or  spoke  {tamu) 
the  word  of  fate  {tamit  pirishti),^  So,  Ninib  is  the  god 
without  whom  the  decisions  (purussu)  of  heaven  and 
earth  cannot  be  decided  ;7  as  whose  mighty  priest 
{ishipu)  Ashumasirpal  was  called  by  Ninib  himself,^ 
whose  father  had  been  a  priest  (shangu)  of  Ashur. 
The  decrees  of  fate  {shimati)  by  which  his  fate  [shimtu) 
was  righteously  decided,  had  come  out  of  the  mouth  of 
the  great  gods.^ 

In  view  of  the  above  statements  about  the  decisions 
of  the  gods  which  directed  the  life  of  men,  the  question 
is  natural  to  ask,  how  did  the  gods  reveal  their  will? 
And  the  answer  is,  through  the  inspection  of  livers  and 
cups,  by  dreams  and  visions,  and  by  many  other  ways; 
but  especially  by  the  phenomena  connected  with  the 
starry  heavens.  In  the  religious  belief  of  the  Baby- 
lonians, as  Delitzsch  and  Winckler  and  Jeremias  have 
clearly  shown,  the  events  of  earth  were  directed  by  the 
gods  whose  seats  were  in  the  stars;  and  the  things  of 

»  Del.,  HWB,  p.  543b.  « Muss-Amolt  175a. 

3  Sharru  nemeki  hanu  tashimti,  King:  Bah.  Magic,  No.  413. 

4  Bit  pirishti  or  parak  shimati  or  ashar  shimati^  which  Delitzsch 
calls  the  earthly  copy  of  the  heavenly  Upshukinnaku. 

5  Nbk.  Inscription,  xv.  Col.  ii,  54-64.     Langdon,  p.  123. 

*  See  Zimmem,  Ritualtafeln^  p.  89.  '  Ashumasirpal,  1,  3. 

^  Id.,  21  ^  Id.,  36,' 37. 


The  Chaldeans  349 

earth  were  but  the  copies  of  the  things  in  heaven.  It 
was  there,  above,  that  was  built  by  them  the  house  of 
our  fate.  The  movements  of  the  stars,  the  eclipses  of 
sun  and  moon,  the  appearances  of  clouds,  the  bursting 
of  storms  and  thimder — such  were  some  of  the  ways 
by  which  the  gods  declared  their  decisions  which  had 
been  made,  or  built  {banu)j  in  the  heavenly  counsel- 
chambers.  As  the  gods  had  built  in  heaven,  the 
astrologers  built  on  earth.  Nebo,  the  spokesman  and 
interpreter  of  the  gods  of  heaven  and  earth,  was  the 
heavenly  builder  (banu  purishtt)  and  his  earthly  repre- 
sentative (the  banu,  or  gal-du)  constructed  what  he 
had  revealed  to  them  through  star  and  cloud  and  storm 
and  earthquake,  and  made  it  known  to  men.'  The 
temple  of  the  god  on  earth  was  built  after  the  fashion  of 
his  house  in  heaven,  and  was  oriented  and  constructed 
with  the  intention  that  the  former  house  as  well  as 
the  latter  might  be  the  means  of  reveaUng  the  will  of 
the  god.  The  chief  of  all  the  builders  was  he  who 
showed  men  where  and  how  to  construct  their  buildings 
and  their  lives,  the  plans  for  which  were  mysteries 
(pirishtu)  opened  up  (petu)  for  them  to  read  in  the 
prototypes  and  figiu-es  of  heaven. 

But,  it  will  be  said,  why  then  do  we  not  find  this 
name,  or  these  signs,  employed  in  the  astrological 
reports  expressly  and  clearly  to  denote  the  astrologers? 

No  completely  satisfactory  answer  can  be  given  to 
this  question.  It  can,  however,  be  paralleled  by  some 
questions   which   are   equally   hard   to  answer.     For 

» "Weltenbild  und  Himmelsbild  sind  eins.  Der  Priester  der  zu  den 
Astralgottheiten  flehte,  eignete  sich  eine  genaue  Kenntniss  des  ges- 
tlrnten  Himmels  an;  die  Bewegungen  der  Himmelskorper  und  ihre  Stel- 
lungen  zu  einander  musste  er  erforschen,  um  den  Willen  der  Gottheiten 
zu  erkennen."  (See  Weidner:  Ilandhuch  dc  hdbylonischen  Astronomie, 
Einleitung:  Leipzig,  19 15.) 


350  The  Book  of  Daniel 

example,  why  is  it  that  the  gaUdu  is  not  mentioned  on 
any  of  the  building  inscriptions?  Why  is  it  that  he 
is  never  mentioned  anywhere  as  concerned  even  in  any 
building  operations  or  transactions?  Why  is  it  that  the 
signs  occur  so  often  on  the  business  tablets  from  Babylon, 
but  in  those  from  Assyria  scarcely  ever,  if  at  all?  Why  is 
the  name  Kal-du  used  by  the  Assyrians  to  denote  the 
Chaldean  people  and  country  and  by  the  Babylonians 
not  at  all?  Why  is  the  land,  or  people,  or  even  a  single 
man,  never  expressly  called  Chaldean  on  the  monuments 
of  Babylon?  On  the  contract  tablets  we  have  a  large 
number  of  patronymics,  such  as  Accadian,  Aramean, 
Arabian,  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  Hittite,  Persian,  and 
Egyptian.^  Why  not  Chaldean?  In  Assyrian,  we  find 
Kal-du  used  for  individuals,  the  country,  and  the  people.  ^ 
Why  do  the  Babylonians  use  the  signs  dup-sar  to  de- 
note the  scribe,  and  the  Assyrians  almost  always  a-ba? 
Why  is  banu  the  common  word  for  builder  on  the 
contract  tablets  and  in  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  but 
ummanu  in  the  building  inscriptions?  Why  does  dim- 
gal  denote  builder  on  the  building  inscriptions  (three 
or  four  times  in  all)  and  yet  never  occur  on  the 
contract  tablets?  Why  were  the  astrological  reports 
signed  and  prepared  by  the  azu^  and  the  us~ku  and  the 
mashmasku  and  the  aba  and  the  dupsar  and  the  rab  aba 
and  the  rab  dupsar  and  the  rab  ashipi  and  the  mar 
Borsippi  and  the  mar  Urukai  and  others?  And  m^ay 
not  all  of  these  have  been  sub-classes  of  the  gal-du,  or 
Chaldean? 

»  Tallquist,  NB.  xxvili. 

'  For  example,  Shuzubu  amilu  Kal-da-ai — Shuzub  the  Chaldean.  See 
Sennacherib  Prism  Inscription^  Col.  hi,  42,  v,  8. 

Mat  Kaldi  "land  of  Chaldea"  {id.,  i,  34). 

Amelu  Kal-du  sJia  kirib  Uruk  "  the  Chaldeans  who  were  in  the  midst  of 
Uruk"(iJ.,i,  37). 


The  Chaldeans  351 

Here  is  a  fine  list  of  questions  all  calling  for  an  answer 
and  as  yet  unanswerable.  When  we  can  answer  them 
we  may  be  able  to  answer  the  one  about  gal-du  ( =  rab 
hanie)  and  dim  ( =  hanu) .  Until  then,  let  us  all  be  willing 
to  acknowledge  that  our  ignorance  as  to  the  sign  and 
meaning  of  a  term,  or  as  to  the  time  when  it  was  first 
used,  proves  nothing. 

Finally,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  kindred  peopies  of 
Assyria  and  Babylonia  use  different  signs  and  names 
to  denote  the  same  thing,  why  may  not  the  Greeks  and 
Arameans  and  Hebrews,  also,  have  done  the  same? 
If  we  could  prove  that  neither  Assyrian,  nor  Babylon- 
ian, denoted  the  astrologer  by  the  term  Chaldean,  how 
would  this  prove  that  others  did  not?  Different  na- 
tions, different  customs.  Different  languages,  different 
names. 

Besides,  it  is  to  be  noted  in  its  bearing  upon  the  Baby- 
lonian origin  of  the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  that  the  other 
names  employed  to  denote  the  wise  men  whom  Nebu- 
chadnezzar called  up  before  him  are  not  as  a  whole  foimd 
in  any  Aramaic  dialect  except  that  of  Daniel,  and  some 
of  them  nowhere  else  but  in  Daniel.  The  word  Chartom 
used  in  Hebrew  first  in  the  accounts  of  Joseph  and 
Moses  to  denote  the  Egyptian  soothsayer,  is  generally 
supposed  to  be  an  Egyptian  word.  It  means  possibly 
*' sacred  scribe, "  or  "chief  of  the  enchanters, "  or  ''spell- 
binder." If  this  be  the  true  meaning,  it  corresponds 
very  closely  to  the  Babylonian  dupsar,  ''tablet-writer, " 
or  "scribe,"  or  to  the  Babylonian  haru,  "seer."  Char- 
tom is  not  f otmd  in  Syriac ;  nor  is  it  in  common  use  in  any 
Aramaic  dialect,  being  used  merely  in  versions  and 
commentaries,  or  in  references  to  the  original  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic  passages  which  contain  it. 

The  second  class  mentioned  in  Daniel  ii,  lo,  the  ash- 


352  The  Book  of  Daniel 

shaph,  is  never  found  in  any  Aramaic  dialect,  except 
Syriac,  and  there  but  seldom. 

The  fourth  class  of  Daniel  ii,  27 y  the  gazerin,  is  not 
called  by  this  name  in  any  other  Aramaic  dialect.  In 
meaning,  it  would  correspond  to  the  Babylonian  mushim 
shimtiy  "decider  of  fate. '* 

The  other  class  mentioned  frequently  in  Daniel,  that 
of  the  wise  men  (hakkimin),  may  be  taken  as  a  general 
term,  or  it  may  correspond  to  the  mudu,  or  imgu,  of 
the  Babylonians,  both  words  of  frequent  occurrence  on 
the  Assyrio-Babylonian  monuments. 

In  the  Hebrew  portion  of  Daniel,  kasdim,  chartom, 
and  ^ashshaf  are  used  to  denote  classes  of  wise  men;  and 
in  addition,  the  term  mekashshefim  is  foimd  in  Daniel  ii, 
2,  where  Nebuchadnezzar  is  said  to  have  called  the  last 
named,  among  others,  to  make  known  and  to  interpret 
his  dream.  The  root  of  this  last  word  and  several 
of  its  derivatives  are  found  frequently  in  Assyrio- 
Babylonian  as  technical  terms  for  witchcraft,  one  of 
its  derivatives  meaning  "poison*'  or  "philter.'*  In 
Syriac,  the  only  Aramaic  dialect  where  the  root  is 
employed,  it  is  used  in  a  good  sense,  of  prayer  and 
supplication.  It  will  be  noted  that  Daniel  is  not  said 
to  have  had  anything  to  do  with  the  mekashshefim  y\ 
a  wizard  being  expressly  forbidden  by  the  law  of 
Deut.  xviii,  10,  and  especially  by  the  law  of  Ex.  xxii,  17. 

That  a  word  having  a  purely  physical  signification 
should  pass  on  to  a  second  sense  having  a  moral  or  re- 
ligious meaning,  is  supported  by  the  analogy  of  all  lan- 
guages. Such  English  words  as  deacon,  minister,  and 
baptize,  illustrate  this  change  of  signification.  The 
Semitic  languages,  also,  are  rich  in  this  kind  of  words 
with  transferred  or  developed  meanings.  We  need  not 
go  outside  the  words  relating  to  astrology  and  magic 


The  Chaldeans  353 

to  find  them.  For  example,  heth^  * 'house,**  becomes 
the  division  of  the  zodiac  where  a  certain  god  is  sup- 
posed to  dwell;  as,  the  house  of  Jupiter,  etc.  This  use 
is  found  in  Arabic, '  and  in  Syriac.  ^ 

So  the  Babylonian  epeshu,  ** to  bewitch,"  is  probably 
connected  with  epeshu,  **to  do";  then,  "to  be  wise.'* 
So  the  Arabic  sana'a  and  hana,  **to  make'*;  then,  "to 
educate.**  So,  also,  the  Babylonian  ummanu,  "work- 
man"; then,  a  kind  of  priest.  According  to  Behrens,^ 
ummanu  is  a  synonym  of  mashmashu,  a  kind  of  priest.  * 

This  connection  between  "work"  and  sorcery  may 
be  seen  perhaps  also  in  harrash,  which  in  Hebrew  means 
"workman"  and  in  Aramaic  "sorcerer.** 

From  the  word  for  "builder**  the  Aramaic  and  New 
Hebrew  derive  the  sense  "builder  of  doctrine**  {Ge- 
lehrter). 

Another  point  in  favor  of  the  gal-du's  being  closely 
allied  to  the  scribes  and  priests,  is  to  be  foimd  in  the 
fact  that  so  often  in  its  occurrence  on  the  contract 
tablets  after  the  name  of  a  witness  it  is  met  with  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  name  and  title  of  shangu, 
"priest,**  and  dupsar,  "scribe. **s 

The  hanUf  or  builder,  is  seldom  found  in  this  position, 
but  the  gal-du,  or  chief  of  the  builders,  frequently. 

Further,  there  is  evidence  on  the  contract  tablets 


« See  Otto  Loth  in  Fleischer's  Festschrift,  for  1875. 

*  See  Bardisan  on  The  Laws  of  the  Nations,  in  the  Spicilegium  Syri* 
acum.  » Ass.-Bab,  Briefe  Kult,  Inhalts,  p.  10. 

*  He  cites  in  favor  of  this  view  as  follows:  Apliya  am.  ummanu  sha 
Ishtar  sha  Arbail  (Harper:  Assyrian  Letters,  v,  533,  2  ff.),  ^* Apliya  the 
umman  of  Ishtar  of  Arbail";  and  {id.,  v,  447,  R  11)  annuti  IX  sha  itti 
ummani  izzazum  dullu  sha  bit  am.  mar  si  ippashuni,  "These  nine  are 
those  who  assist  the  umman  to  perform  the  rites  for  the  house  of  the 
sick";  and  {id.,  ii,  167,  R  16)  "  i  Qa  meal  i  Qa  Wine  for  the  ummanu. " 

5  E.  g.  Cambyses,  viii,  11,  12,  xvi,  16;  Darius,  Ixxxii,  14,  ccccl,  15.J 

23 


354  The  Book  of  Daniel 

that  the  galdus  stood  to  the  shangus  (i.  e.,  priests)  in  a 
blood  relationship  differing  from  that  in  which  the 
shangus  stood  to  the  banus  or  ordinary  builders.^ 

Now,  Zimmem  holds  that  the  Babylonian  priests 
formed  a  close  corporation  which  transplanted  itself  from 
father  to  son.  He  bases  this  view  (i)  on  a  statement  of 
Diodorus  Siculus  (ii,  29)  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
Chaldeans  was  transmitted  from  father  to  son;  (2) 
on  the  fact  that  the  seers  and  other  priests  are  fre- 
quently called  *'sons  of  seers,"  etc.;  and  (3)  upon  the 
strong  emphasis  placed  in  the  ritual  tablets  upon  the 
continuity  of  the  priesthood  and  of  its  most  holy 
traditions.  The  passage  from  Diodorus  reads  as 
follows:  "Among  the  Chaldeans,  philosophy  is  handed 
down  in  families  {ek  genous),  a  son  receiving  from  his 
father,  and  being  freed  from  all  other  public  services." 

Examples  under  (2)  are  found  on  the  Ritual  Tablets 
i,  l»  7>  38  et  al.  Under  (3),  Professor  Zimmern  shows  ^ 
that  the  haru  had  to  be  of  priestly  blood  and  education 
and  that  it  may  be  assumed  that  this  was  true  of  all  the 
priests.    Thus  in  the  Ritual  Tablets  No.  24,  we  read: 

The  cunning  wise  man  who  guards  the  secret  of  the  great 
gods  causes  his  son  whom  he  loves  to  swear  on  the  tablet  and 
before  Shamash  and  Hadad,  causes  him  to  learn  "When  the 
sons  of  the  seers**  [that  is,  the  tablets  beginning  with  this 
phrase].  The  ahkal  of  the  oil,  of  long  genealogy,  a  scion 
of  Enme-dur-an-ki,  king  of  Sippar,  establisher  of  the  holy 
cup  [and]  elevator  of  the  cedar  [staff]  a  creature  of  Nin- 
har-sag-ga  of  priestly  blood,  of  noble  descent,  perfect  in 

*  For  example,  Gimillu-Gula  the  priest  (shangu)  is  called  the  son  of 
Shumukin  the  galdu  (Nebuch.,  335,  13);  so,  also,  the  priest  Tabik-ziru 
is  the  son  of  a  galdu  {id.,  22,  12;  cf  179,  327,  72,  and  196);  so,  also,  in 
Cambyses,  72,  14,  15,  and  284,  a  priest  {shangu)  is  called  a  grandson  of  a 
galdu,  a  Rttualtafeln,  pp.  87-91. 


The  Chaldeans  355 

stature  and  in  growth,  shall  approach  before  Shamash  and 
Hadad  in  the  place  of  vision  and  decision.^ 

If  then,  Zimmem  and  Diodorus  Siculus  are  right  in 
stating  that  the  Babylonian  priests  held  their  office 
by  family  inheritance  (and  we  know  certainly  that  the 
Hebrew  and  Egyptian  priests  did  thus  inherit  their 
official  rights),  it  is  obvious  that  since  shangus  could  be 
and  were  sons,  or  grandsons,  of  galdus,  both  must 
have  been  of  the  priestly  race.  It  is  well  to  call  special 
attention  to  the  fact  that  Diodorus  calls  these  priests 
the  Chaldeans.  If,  as  we  have  argued  above,  galdu 
is  the  same  as  "  Chaldean,*'  the  galdu  might  well  be 
the  general  term;  that  is,  all  the  shangus  would  be 
galduSf  but  galdus  would  not  all  be  shangus^ — ^just  as  all 
the  Jewish  priests  were  Levites,  but  the  Levites  were  not 
all  priests. 

Further,  we  find  no  example  of  anyone  who  was  called 
both  a  hanu,  and  a  gal-du.  Nor  among  the  hundreds 
of  names  mentioned  in  Tallquist*s  Book  of  Names 
(Namenbuch)  is  anyone  at  one  time  called  a  galdu 
and  at  another  time  a  hanu.* 

Whether  the  haru,  the  ashipu,  the  zimmeru^  and  others 
performing  priestly  functions  were  also  galdus^  or  in 
what  relation  any  of  these  stood  to  either  the  shangus y 
or  the  galdus y  the  records  give  us  no  information.  ^  No 
man  whose  name  is  given  in  the  Tallquist  tablets,  is 
called  either  harUj  ashipu^  zimmeru,  or  mashmashu; 
while  shangu  and  galdu  each  occur  himdreds  of  times. 
If  the  sign  rid  in  the  inscriptions  from  the  reign  of 

'See  also  Dhorme,  Textes  Religieux  Assyro-hahyloniens,  p.  142. 

»  Of  course  this  is  merely  negative  evidence.  A  shangu  however, 
might  be  the  son  of  a  banu,  as  in  the  inscription  of  Evil-Merodach 
published  by  Evetts  (Bab.  Texte,  vii,  B.  No.  19). 

3  But  see  Addendum  to  Excursus,  p.  365. 


35^  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Sin-shar-ishkun,  king  of  Assyria,  published  by  Evetts 
in  his  Babylon.  Texte,  p.  90,  be  read  nappahUf  then  a 
priest  in  Assyria  might  be  a  son  of  a  smith.  But  if  we 
read  the  sign  ummanu,  it  may  mean  an  ummanu  priest.  ^ 

As  to  the  relation  in  which  the  dupsar^  or  scribe,  stood 
to  the  galdUf  we  are  not  prepared  to  make  any  positive 
statements.  It  is  clear  that  a  galdu  might  have  a  son 
who  was  a  scribe.  * 

Lastly,  if  the  galdus  were  priests  we  can  account 
reasonably  for  such  texts  as  that  found  in  Peek's 
collection,  number  4,  which  Pinches  translates:  "The 
fruit  due,  again  applied  for,  in  the  district  of  Sippar, 
from  the  Chaldeans.'*^  These  galdus  can  scarcely 
have  been  a  community  of  architects,  but  may  well 
have  been  a  fellowship  of  priests;  since,  as  Dr.  Peiser 
says  in  his  Sketch  of  Babylonian  Society ,  ^  certain  por- 
tions of  the  land  were  given  over  into  the  possession  of 
the  temples,  so  that  the  support  of  the  temples  and 
priests  to  be  derived  from  the  income  of  the  land  might 
not  be  interfered  with.  The  view  of  Dr.  Peiser  derived 
from  the  monuments  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of 
Arrian  in  his  Expedition  oj  Alexander ^^  where  he  says 
that 

The  Chaldeans  did  not  wish  Alexander  to  come  to  Baby- 
lon lest  he  should  take  away  from  them  the  income  derived 

*  For  this  use  of  ummanu  see  Behren's  Ass.  Bah,  Briefs  p.  10,  and 
Frank's  Studien  zur  Babylonischen  Religion,  p.  17. 

^  For  example,  Peiser's  Babylonian  Contracts  {Bab.  Vertrdge)  Nos. 
5, 7,  16,  28,  45,  50,  51,  55,  61,  64,  70,  80,  83, 100,  loi,  no,  114, 115,  and 
140.  But  a  scribe  might  be  descended  also  from  a  herdsman  (Peiser, 
Vertrdge  iii,  22) ;  from  a  smith  {id.  8) ;  from  a  ba'iru  (a  fisher,  constable,  or 
press-gang  officer,  id.,  17, 22, 23,  65);  or  from  a  physician  (c-zm,  id.,  76); 
or  even  from  an  Egyptian  {id.,  94). 

»  Gal-du-mes  pi.     Cf.  VASD.  vi,  20,  22. 

*  Skizze  der  Bab.  Gesellschafi,  p,  16,  «  Bk.  7,  ch.  17. 


The  Chaldeans  357 

from  the  possessions  of  the  temple  of  Bel  (to  which  much 
land  and  much  gold  had  been  dedicated  by  the  Assyrian 
kings),  that  he  might  with  it  reconstruct  the  Temple  of 
Bel  which  had  been  destroyed  by  Xerxes. 

As  we  indicated  above,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  dis- 
cuss more  fully  the  question  as  to  what  these  con- 
structors built.  The  obvious  answer  would  be,  houses, 
of  course.  But  what  kind  of  houses?  Or,  what  were 
the  duties  of  the  *' chief  of  the  builders**  in  their  relation 
to  houses?  It  will,  perhaps,  not  be  known  to  all  my 
readers  that  among  astrologers  the  word  ''house**  was 
used  to  denote  the  parts  of  the  heavens.  There  was 
the  house  of  Mars,  and  the  house  of  Jupiter,  and  the 
house  of  the  Sim,  etc.  An  astrologer  who  constructed 
horoscopes  may  very  well  have  been  called  a  builder, 
or  the  chief  of  the  builders.  Unfortunately,  the 
astrological  and  magical  texts  so  far  published  in 
Assyrio-Baby Ionian  give  us  no  horoscopes  in  the 
narrower  sense  of  nativities;  but  the  Arabic,  Syriac,  and 
the  Aramaic  of  Onkelos,  all  use  the  phrase  "house  of 
nativity,  or  birth*'  to  denote  a  child's  horoscope.^ 
A  better  word  than  "builder**  for  the  one  who  con- 
structed this  house  cannot  be  suggested.  Unfortunately, 
again,  the  Assyrio-Baby  Ionian  texts  so  far  published 
give  us  no  certain  word  for  astrologer.  Baru,  "  seer,  '* 
may  have  included  the  duties  of  astrologer  or  star-gazer 
but  his  functions  were  certainly  much  wider,  as  Zimmem 
has  clearly  shown.*  The  dupsar^  or  scribe,  was  spe- 
cifically the  writer  of  a  tablet,  though  he  may,  of  course, 
have  been  an  astrologer  also.  The  signs  A-BA^  which 
in  Assyrian  denote  the  scribe,  might  denote  the  astrol- 

«  See  Gen.  xl,  20,  in  Syriac  and  Aramaic. 
*  Ritualtafeln,  pp.  82-91. 


358  The  Book  of  Daniel 

oger,  also;  but  no  one  is  sure  as  yet  how  to  read  these 
signs  in  Assyrian,  nor  what  they  mean  exactly.  Galdu, 
because  of  its  meaning  as  well  as  because  of  its  being 
the  phonetic  equivalent  of  ChaldaioSj  may  well  have 
been  the  name  for  astrologer  among  the  Babylonians. 
That  the  word  should  be  spelled  in  its  Aramaic,  Hebrew, 
and  Greek  forms,  in  the  same  way  as  kaldu,  the  name  of 
the  nation,  does  not  prove  an  identity  of  origin.  The 
English  word  ^*host"  has  three  distinct  meanings, 
one  derived  from  the  Latin  hostia^  "  sacrifice, "  one  from 
the  Latin  hostisj  "enemy,'*  and  one  from  the  Latin 
hospes,  "entertainer.**  Many  words  in  all  languages 
are  homonymous  and  homophonous,  without  being 
homogenous,  or  homologous. 

Moreover,  the  duties  of  astrologers  were  not  confined 
to  making  horoscopes  of  nativities.  It  is  clear  from 
the  monuments  that  someone  was  called  upon  to 
orient  and  lay  out  the  temples  and  palaces,  perhaps  all 
houses,  before  they  were  constructed.  The  plans  of 
the  temples,  at  least,  may  well  have  been  drawn  up 
by  someone  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  god 
in  whose  honor  the  temple  was  to  be  built.  As  each  god 
had  his  particular  ceremonies  and  a  distinctive  temple 
for  his  proper  worship,  we  can  readily  perceive  how 
the  records  speak  of  a  galdu  of  the  god  Shamash'  and 
of  a  galdu  of  the  god  Marduk.* 

As  the  streets,  walls,  embankments,  and  public  build- 
ings needed  to  be  oriented  and  constructed,  we  can 
understand  how,  also,  there  could  be  a  galdu  of  the 
city  of  Babylon.  ^ 

Moreover,  since  buildings  could  be  commenced  only 
on  a  lucky  day  and  in  a  lucky  month,  it  may  well  have 

«  Strassmaier:  Insc.  of  Nahunaid,  351,1,  VASD.  vi,  22,  2. 

2  Strass.:  Iiisc,  of  Darius,  457,12.  ^Id.  348,  19. 


The  Chaldeans  359 

been  the  duty  of  the  chief  of  the  builders  to  determine 
when  the  day  had  arrived  on  which  it  would  be  fortunate 
to  begin  operations.  Again  and  again  the  kings  re- 
iterate that  a  building  was  begiin  on  a  lucky  day.  Who 
better  than  the  astrologer  could  determine  this?  And 
since  building  could  not  be  commenced  without  his 
permission,  he  might  for  this  reason,  also,  be  called 
galdu — chief  of  the  builders. 

Again,  Schrank  says  that  the  mashmashu  and  kalu 
seem  to  have  taken  part  in  the  festive  initiation  of  new 
buildings,  canals,  etc.  Thus  Sennacherib  sends  a 
mashmashu  and  a  kalu  to  open  a  canal  and'  a  kalu  takes 
part  in  the  rebuilding  of  temples. ' 

Further,  it  is  frequently  said  that  ceremonies  took 
place  at  the  initiation  of  repairs,  or  the  laying  of  the 
foundation,  or  at  the  commencement  of  the  removal 
of  the  d6bris  from  the  ruins  of  an  old  temple,  or  at  the 
dedication  of  a  new,  or  renewed,  building.  For  example, 
at  the  laying  of  the  foundation  of  the  temple  of  Sin 
in  Harran,  Nabimaid  says  that  he  did  it  with  incan- 
tations and  with  the  commission  of  the  god  Libittu, 
the  lord  of  foundations  and  bricks,  on  the  fortunate  day 
and  in  the  favorable  month  which  Shamash  and 
Ramman  had  made  known  to  him  in  a  vision;  and  that 
he  poured  out  on  its  walls  palm-wine,  wine,  oil,  and 
honey.  ^ 

Again,  further  on  in  the  same  inscription  Nabunaid 
says  that  he  laid  the  bricks  of  the  temple  of  the  Sun  at 
Sippar  upon  the  foundation  of  Naram-Sin  which  Sham- 
ash  had  made  known  to  him  in  a  vision  (biri),  with  joy 
and  rejoicing,  in  a  favorable  month  on  a  fortunate  day, 


'  Meissner  and  Rost,  Die  Bauinschiften  Sanheribs  27. 

«  See  Bab.  Siihnriien,  pp.  12,  13.  '  KB.  iii,  ii,  100. 


360  The  Book  of  Daniel 

anointing  with  oil  the  written  name  of  Naram-Sin 
and  offering  sacrifices.  ^  Further  on,  he  speaks  of  hav- 
ing sanctified  it  and  made  it  fit  to  be  a  temple  of  his 
godhead.  * 

It  will  be  noticed,  also,  that  no  step  is  taken  by  any 
king,  at  least  in  regard  to  building,  without  some  inti- 
mation of  the  will  of  the  gods.  ^ 

Some  of  the  names  by  which  the  mediums  or  inter- 
preters of  these  communications  from  the  gods  were 
called  are  harUy  "seer";^  mahhu,  " priest ";s  shabru, 
"interpreter"  (?);^  ashipu,  " enchanter ";7  kalu  or 
mashmashu.^ 

No  building  operations  seem  to  have  been  com- 
menced without  a  sign  from  the  gods  through  one  of 
these  methods  of  communication.  These  priests  and 
seers,  and  others  of  like  import,  could  cause  or  prevent 
any  building  enterprises.  They  were  the  real  masters 
of  the  building  trades  unions,  the  "bosses  of  the  jobs. " 
They  could  declare  a  strike  or  assumption  of  opera- 
tions.   Taking  them  all  together,  no  better  term  could 

» Id.,  104.  « Id.,  108. 

3  This  intimation  comes  by  a  word  or  command  {amatu,  KB.  iii,  ii.  78, 
98,  126;  kibit,  KB.  iii,  i,  252, 254, 256,  and  very  often  everywhere;  zikru, 
KB.  iii,ii,  264;  temu,  iii,  ii,  124),  by  a  dream  or  vision  {shuttu,  iii,  ii,  98; 
igiltu,  iii,  i,  252;  ^trw,  iii,  ii,  loi,  104;  shirUy  iii,  ii,  84),  or  by  a  decision  or 
judgment  (^arMWM,  KB.  iii,  ii,  1 10;  sUmatu,ii\,  ii,  70,72;  dinu.KB. ii,  236; 
or  teru,  iii,  ii,  1 10,  118.  Reports  of  Mag.  and  Astrol.,  186  R.  9,  187  R.  3), 
or  by  a  commission  or  sign  however  given  (shibir  ashiputim,  Langdon, 
p.  i,  146,  148.  Compare  shipir  ish-ship-pu-ti,  "the  commission  of  the 
ish-ship  priest,"  Ashurbanipal,  Rassam  Cyl.,  iv,  86;  shipir  Ish-tar  or 
Ishtarate,  "the  commission  of  Ishtar"  or  "of  the  Ishtar  priestesses,'* 
KB.  ii,  252;  shipir  mahhie,  "the  commission  of  the  mahhu  priests,"  id.; 
idatu,  "signs,"  KB.  ii,  252,  and  Del.,  HWB.,  304). 

4  See  Zimmem,  Ritualtafeln,  86-91.  s  KB.  ii,  252. 
6  KB.  ii,  250. 

'  KB.  192;  Frank,  Studien  zur  hah.  Religion,  p.  23. 
*  Schrank,  Bab,  SUhnriten,  12. 


The  Chaldeans  361 

be  suggested  by  which  to  name  them  than  galdu,  rah 
barney  "the  chiefs  of  the  builders."^ 

Again,  banu  is  used  in  series  of  synonymous  expres- 
sions to  denote  the  men  who  were  connected  with 
the  oracles  of  the  gods,  with  astrology,  with  building, 
and  with  the  wise  men  in  general.  In  so  far  as  any  of 
these  wise  men  had  to  do  with  the  construction  of  the 
houses  of  the  gods;*  or  with  the  horoscope,  or  house  of 
one's  nativity;  or  with  the  building  of  temples;  or  with 
the  building  of  "fates,"  or  even  of  thoughts, — they 
might  each  be  called  a  banu,  or  builder.  Their  chiefs 
might  well  have  been  called  gaUdu  =  rah  banie,  "  chiefs  of 
the  builders.  **  Inasmuch  as  this  kind  of  building  was 
their  highest  function,  we  can  easily  understand  how 

'  A  syllabary  published  on  the  Cuneiform  Texts  from  Bah.  Tablets  ^  etc., 
in  the  British  Museum,  part  xviii,  plate  13,  supports  this  view  just 
stated.  In  the  syllabary  we  find  hanu  given  as  a  synonym  of  haru, 
"seer";  haru  as  a  synonym  of  a-su,  "physician,"  and  mu-de-e  ter-te, 
"knowerof  oracles,"  *' Orakelkundiger"  (Zimmern,2?.  r.,87);  and  these 
immediately  followed  by  dup-sar-rUf  "scribe,"  en-kUf  "wise  man," 
and  mu-du-u,  "learned,  kenner. "  The  Sumerian  a-zu^  as  is  well  known, 
denotes  in  Assyrian,  asu,  "physician,"  dupsar,  "scribe,"  and  baru, 
"seer"  (Zimmern,  R.  T.,  86);  but  gi-hal  =  banu  piristi  (the  gi  denoting 
piristu  =  shimtu,  Br.  2402,  2410),  a  phrase  used  to  describe  Nebo,  "the 
builder  of  fate."  Compare  what  Ashurbanipal  says  in  the  Rassam 
Cylinder  (x,  70,  71) :  "On  my  bed  at  night  my  dreams  are  favorable  and 
on  that  of  the  morning  my  thoughts  are  created  " ;  where  banu  is  perman- 
sive,  as  damka  is  in  the  preceding  clause  (Vd.  Del.,  Gr.,  sec.  89B). 
So  A-ZU=asUt  or  baru.  With  the  sign  for  god  before  them,  the  signs 
nt-zw  =  Nebo.     Again,  me-zu  =  baru  or  mude  terti  (Br.  10384,  10385). 

Lastly,  the  signs  nun-me-tag  =  enku,  eppishu,  hassu,  mudu,  bel  terte, 
abkallum,  and  mar  ummani,  and  these  all  are  probably  synonyms  of 
baru  (Zimmern,  Ritualtafeln,  86). 

»  This  house  of  the  gods  is  the  same  as  the  bait  oi  Al  Kindt  (edited  by 
Otto  Loth  for  the  Festschrift  oi  Prof.  Dr.  H.  L.  Fleischer),  and  the  bet 
of  Bardesan's  Book  of  the  Laws  of  the  Countries  (published  by  Cureton 
in  the  Spicilegium  Syriacum) ,  the  oikos  or  doma  of  Manetho's  Apoteles- 
matica,  and  Maximus'  Anecdota  Astrological  and  the  "house"  of  our  own 
astrologers. 


362  The  Book  of  Daniel 

the  foreign  Greeks  and  Hebrews  and  Arameans  may 
have  adopted  the  phrase  used  to  denote  the  highest 
officials  of  the  cult,  or  profession,  as  a  general  term 
including  all  the  sub-classes  subsumed  under  it.  We 
can  understand,  also,  why  the  Babylonian  contract 
tablets  name  so  many  galdus  and  almost  entirely  fail 
to  mention  the  other  classes  named  above,  except  the 
scribes,  or  dupsarri.  The  shangu  ("priest"),  the  dup- 
sar\  and  the  galdu,  the  three  titles  met  with  so  often 
on  the  tablets,  will  thus  represent  the  learned  classes, 
who  transacted  the  business  of  the  community  both 
sacred  and  profane.  And  where  visions  and  dreams 
are  concerned,  as  is  the  case  in  Daniel,  the  galdu  would 
be  the  man  for  the  work. 

Before  closing  the  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Chaldean,  it  may  be  well  to  call  attention  to  two 
remarkable  facts  to  be  gleaned  from  the  astrological 
and  contract  tablets.  The  first  is  that  the  signs  gal  and 
du,  which  are  found  so  often  on  the  contract  tablets  of 
Babylonia,  are  scarcely,  if  ever,  found  on  any  docu- 
ments from  Assyria. ""  Babylonia  was  the  country  of 
the  galdu  according  to  the  cuneiform  doctmients;  and 


^  The  signs  A.BA.  of  the  Assyrian  tablets  are  commonly  employed 
where  the  Babylonian  use  dupsar,  "scribe. "  See  tablets  in  KB.  iv,  pp. 
100,  108,  1 10  bis,  1 12, 1 14  bis,  1 16  bis,  et  al.  The  rab  a-ba  of  Nos.  74,  109, 
266,  of  Thompson's  Reports  of  the  Magicians  and  Astrologers  of  Nine- 
veh and  Babylon  would  be  the  chief  of  the  scribes,  the  same  as  the  rab 
dup-sar  of  Nos.  81,  259. 

The  ^.ZZ7of  No.  58  may  also  be  read  as  dup-sar,  "scribe"  (see  B run- 
now,  11377  and  11379)-  The  rab  asu  of  No.  59  might  then  be  "the 
chief  of  the  scribes. "  The  only  names  left  in  Thompson's  tablets  that 
might  come  under  the  class  of  the  Chaldean  priests  are  the  mash- 
mashu  on  Nos.  24,  83,  183,  243,  and  kalu  on  134  {kal-li-e  on  No.  256. 
Cf.  rab  kal-li-e,  K.  316,  KB.  iv,  114)  and  possibly  the  haloi  18, 186,  and 
187,  all  of  which,  as  we  have  seen  above,  may  have  been  subdivisions 
of  the  gal-dus. 


The  Chaldeans  363 

it  was  the  region  of  the  Chaldean  priests  according 
to  Daniel,  Herodotus,  Ctesius,  Berosus,  Strabo,  Diodo- 
rtjs  Siculus,  and  Arrian. 

The  other  fact  is  the  noteworthy  agreement  of  Strabo 
and  the  Assyrian  astrological  reports  with  regard  to  the 
localities  where  the  different  classes  of  astrologers 
resided.  Strabo  says  (Bk.  XVI,  l)  that  there  were  many 
kinds  of  Chaldean  astrologers,  such  as  Orchenoi,  Bor- 
sippenoi,  and  many  others.  Now,  many  of  Thompson's 
Astrological  Reports  are  by  men  who  are  called  sons  of 
Borsippa  or  sons  of  Uruk  (i.  e,,  Orchenoi) ;  and  an  um- 
manu  of  Borsippa  is  mentioned  in  Thompson's  Late 
Babylonian  Letters^  i,  obv.  6.  The  reports  and  letters 
were  written  in  the  7th  century  B.  c.  During  all  this 
time  the  astrologers  of  Borsippa  and  Uruk  held  their 
place  of  preeminence  as  astrologers;  and  Strabo  calls 
them  both  Chaldeans. 

If,  therefore,  anyone  object  to  deriving  "Chaldean" 
from  gal-du,  chief  of  the  builders,"  he  may  still  hold 
that  the  name  as  used  for  priests  was  derived  from  the 
name  as  used  for  a  people.  For  the  name  Kaldu,  or 
Chaldean,  for  the  people  and  country  and  individuals 
of  Chaldea,  is  found  from  the  time  of  Shalmanezer  III, 
850  B.  c.  to  the  time  of  Arrian  and  Quintus  Curtius. 
During  any  part  of  this  time,  therefore,  if  we  derive  the 
name  Chaldean  as  applied  to  the  Chaldean  priests  from 
the  name  of  the  Chaldean  people,  these  priests  may 
have  been  found  in  Babylon  exercising  the  functions  of 
astrologers  and  have  been  called  Chaldeans  after  the 
ruling  people,  just  as  other  astrologers  were  found  in 
Borsippa  and  Uruk,  and  named  after  the  cities  where 
they  dwelt  and  performed  their  duties.  That  is,  if  the 
astrologers  of  Borsippa  could  be  called  Borsippenes, 
the   astrologers   of   Chaldea  may  have  been  rightly 


364  The  Book  of  Daniel 

called  Chaldeans;  the  one  from  the  city,  the  other  from 
the  country,  or  nation,  to  which  they  respectively 
belonged.  The  sub-classes  are  mentioned  by  Strabo 
as  well  as  the  general  term;  Daniel  mentions  the  general 
term  alone.  ^ 

In  conclusion,  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  astro- 
logical reports  thus  far  published,  which  give  the  names 
of  the  writers,  are  almost  all  Assyrian;  and  that  the 
astrological  reports  of  Strassmaier,  Epping,  and  Kugler 
do  not  give  the  native  names  for  the  astronomers  who 
drew  them  up,  nor  even  the  signs  used  to  denote  those 
names.  But  even  if  they  did  give  many  signs,  or  names, 
to  denote  astrologers,  it  would  not  prove  that  Daniel  was 
wrong  in  using  Chaldean  to  denote  them.  For  first, 
Daniel  was  writing  in  Aramaic  and  not  in  Babylonian; 
and  secondly,  the  subscriptions  of  the  writers  of  the 
Astrological  Reports  with  half  a  dozen  or  more  groups 
of  signs  and  at  least  a  dozen  different  ways  of  de- 
scribing them,  to  denote  the  writers  of  the  reports 
should  warn  us  not  to  be  too  certain  that  gal-du 
may  not  also  have  been  properly  used  to  denote  them. 

In  concluding  this  long  discussion  of  the  origin,  mean- 
ing, and  use  of  the  word  Chaldean  to  denote  a  priestly 
class,  let  us  sum  up  by  saying  that  we  think  we  have 
shown  that  it  is  not  certain  that  the  word  does  not  occur 
upon  the  Babylonian  monuments  inasmuch  as  it  prob- 
ably is  the  same  as  the  word  gal-du  which  is  frequently 
found  on  them;  that,  secondly,  if  Chaldean  be  not 
the  Aramaic  and  Hebrew  form  of  gal-du,  it  may  have 
been  the  same  in  origin,  though  different  in  meaning,  as 

*  The  use  by  the  Arameans  of  the  patronymic  Kaldu  or  Kasdu  to 
denote  a  priestly  class  or  function  may  be  compared  with  medizein  in 
Creek  to  denote  Greeks  who  favored  the  Medes  and  with  "to  jew 
down"  in  English. 


The  Chaldeans  365 

the  Assyrian  Kal-du,  which  was  employed  to  denote  the 
tribe  living  south  of  Babylon  whose  kings  ruled  over 
Babylon  in  the  time  of  Daniel,  inasmuch  as  priestly 
fimctions  were  often  delegated  to  a  tribe,  or  class,  as 
has  been  the  case  among  the  Jews,  the  Egyptians,  the 
Medes,  and  the  people  of  Lystra;  and  thirdly,  that  even 
if  the  word  were  absent  from  the  Babylonian  monu- 
ments as  a  designation  of  the  astrologers,  or  priests,  it 
would  not  prove  that  such  a  class  with  such  a  name  did 
not  exist,  any  more  than  the  absence  of  the  name  as  a 
designation  of  the  tribe,  or  people,  of  the  Chaldeans 
proves  that  such  a  people  did  not  exist. 

ADDENDUM  TO  EXCURSUS 

Since  writing  the  above  the  most  important 
evidence  to  show  that  the  banu  and  gal-du  were 
included  in  the  sodality  of  the  priests  and  seers  has 
appeared  in  the  Yale  cylinder  of  Nabunaid. '  At 
the  dedication  of  his  daughter,  Bel-shalti-Nannar, 
to  Sin  and  Nikkal  for  the  service  of  divination 
{ina  shihir  ashipitim)  in  the  temple  of  Egipar,  he 
says  that  he  endowed  the  temple  richly  with 
fields,  gardens,  servants,  herds,  and  flocks;  and 
that  "in  order  that  the  priesthood  of  Egishshirgal 
and  the  houses  of  the  gods  might  not  incur  sin,  he 
remitted  the  taxes,  established  the  income,  and 
purified  and  sanctified  to  Sin  and  Nikkal  the  chief 
priest,*  the  inspector  of  property, ^  the  seer,  the 

«  Published  In  the  Yale  Oriental  Series,  Babylonian  Texts,  vol.  i, 
pp.  66-75.     New  Haven,  1915. 

»  See  Frank,  Studien  zur  babylonischen  Religion,  p.  5.  For  ramkut 
in  the  sense  of  priesthood  and  kinishtum  in  the  sense  of  sodality,  see 
the  same,  p.  60.  For  the  latter,  compare  also  kenishta  d'beth  Y'huda 
in  the  haggada  to  Psalm  xxxviii,  12.  (See  Lewy's  Chalddisches 
Worterbuch,  i,  373.) 

i  See  Brunnow's  Classified  List,  7820  and  10695. 


366  The  Book  of  Daniel 

engisu,  the  imprecator,  the  gal-du,  the  hanu,  the 
duUahha,  the  overseer  of  the  gallunty  the  custodian, 
the  lagarUf  the  maker  of  supplications,  the  singers 
who  rejoice  the  hearts  of  the  gods, — the  solidarity 
of  those  whose  names  are  named."' 

From  this  passage  it  is  manifest  that  the  gal-du 
and  banu  are  said  to  be  in  the  sodaHty,  or  assembly, 
of  the  ramku-priests.  Their  names  are  placed  after 
those  of  the  enu-ishibi,  the  baru,  and  the  artru,  and 
before  those  of  the  lagaru,  and  the  mmmeru.  They 
are  said,  also,  to  have  been  named  with  names, 
that  is,  to  have  been  dedicated  to  the  service  of  the 
gods  with  the  giving  of  a  new  name,  just  as  in  the 
same  inscription  the  daughter  of  Nabtmaid  re- 
ceived a  new  name  at  her  dedication.  ^ 

*  24  Ash-shum :  25  ra-am-ku-ut  E-gish-shir-gal  u  batati  ilani 

26  e-nu  i-shib-bi  shabru  sibti  am .  baru  am .  EN-GI-SU 

27  am .  a-ri-ru  am  .  gal-du  am  .  banu  am .  DUL-LAH-H  A  itu  gal-lum 

28  am .  ti-ir-bit  am .  la-ga-ru  sha-ki-in  tak-ri-ib-ti 

29  am  .  zammare  mu-had-du-u  lib-bi  ilani 

30  am .  ki-ni-ish-timi  sha  na-bu-u  shu-ma-an-shu-un 

31  i-li-ik-shu-nu  ap-tu-ur-ma  shu-bar-ra-shu-nu  ash-ku-un 

32  ub-bi-ib-shu-nu-ti-ma 

33  a-na  ili  Sin  u  ili  Nin-gal  bele-e-a  u-zak-ki-shu-nu-ti 

'On  column  i,  lines  24-25,  Nabunaid  says:  I  dedicated  my  daughter 
to  the  e»^M-ofi5ce.    I  called  her  name  Bel-shalti-Nannar. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

DANIEL  AND  THE  WISE  MEN 

When  Paul  was  at  Philippi,  he  was  accused  of  teach- 
ing customs  which  it  was  not  lawful  for  the  Philippians 
to  observe,  being  Romans.  Without  a  trial  and  un- 
condemned,  he  was  beaten  and  imprisoned  and  put  in 
the  stocks.  This  illustrates  the  manner  in  which  the 
critics  accuse  Daniel  of  becoming  a  Babylonian  wise 
man,  of  observing  customs  which  it  was  not  lawful  for 
him  to  observe,  "being  a  strict  Jew."  They  do  not 
prove  that  the  customs  of  the  wise  men  were  not  lawful 
for  a  strict  Jew  to  observe.  To  do  this  they  should 
first  show  what  a  strict  Jew  might  legally  have  been; 
and  secondly,  what  there  was  in  the  customs  and  be- 
liefs of  a  wise  man  of  Babylon  that  made  it  impossible 
for  Daniel  to  have  been  at  the  same  time  a  strict  Jew 
and  a  Babylonian  wise  man.  This  they  have  failed  to 
show.  They  simply  assert  it,  just  as  the  Philippians 
asserted  that  Paul  troubled  their  city  by  teaching 
unlawful  customs. 

Again,  as  we  shall  see,  they  have  failed  to  show  how 
it  would  have  been  impossible  for  a  Jewish  writer  of 
the  second  century  B.C., — the  time  of  the  Maccabees 
and  of  the  Assideans, — to  have  written  a  work  whose 
hero  would  have  been  represented  as  being  both  a  strict 
Jew  and  a  Babylonian  wise  man,  if  there  had  been  an  in- 

367 


368  The  Book  of  Daniel 

consistency  in  a  man's  being  at  the  same  time  both  of 
them.  They  have  failed  even  to  consider  how  a  strict 
Jew,  writing  a  book  of  fiction  for  the  consolation  of 
strict  Jews,  to  be  accepted  by  strict  Jews  as  a  genuine 
history,  could  have  said  that  a  strict  Jew  was  a  Baby- 
lonian wise  man,  if  there  was  anything  unlawful  or 
improper  in  a  strict  Jew's  being  a  Babylonian  wise  man. 
Certainly  a  strict  Jew  of  the  middle  of  the  second 
century  B.C.  was  as  strict  as  one  of  the  middle  of  the 
sixth.  Certainly,  also,  a  Chaldean  wise  man  of  the 
second  century  B.C.,  was  as  bad  as  one  of  the  sixth. 
Certainly,  also,  as  we  shall  see,  a  wise  man  was  at  both 
times  and  at  all  times  the  subject  of  imstinted,  unquali- 
fied, and  invariable  praise  on  the  part  of  Jew  and 
Babylonian  and  Greek.  Certainly,  last  of  all,  if  the 
critics  were  right  in  placing  the  completion  of  the  law 
in  post-exilic  times,  a  strict  Jew  of  the  second  century 
B.C.  would  be  much  stricter  than  he  would  have  been  in 
the  sixth  century  B.C.,  before  the  law  had  been  com- 
pleted. For  surely  a  strict  Jew  of  the  sixth  century 
B.C.  cannot  be  blamed  by  the  critics  for  not  observing 
a  law  that  according  to  these  same  critics  was  not 
promulgated  till  the  fifth  or  fourth  century  B.C.  A 
writer  living  in  Palestine  in  the  second  century  B.C., 
composing  a  book  with  the  intent  of  encouraging  the 
Assidean  party  and  the  observance  of  the  law,  would 
scarcely  make  his  hero  live  a  life  inconsistent  with  this 
very  law  which  it  was  his  purpose  to  magnify;  whereas  a 
Jew  living  at  Babylon  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  where 
the  law  could  not  be  strictly  observed,  might  have  been 
excused  even  if  he  had  transgressed  the  injunctions 
which  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  observe.  This  is  an 
ad  hominem  argument  which  is  gladly  left  to  the  con- 
sideration of  those  who  affirm  that  a  strict  Jew  of  the 


The  Wise  Men  369 

sixth  century  B.C.,  could  not  have  been  a  Babylonian 
wise  man,  while  one  of  the  second  might  have  been ! 

When  Jesus  was  brought  up  before  the  High  Priest 
two  witnesses  testified  that  he  had  said,  "Destroy  this 
temple  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  The 
evangelist  admits  that  he  had  used  these  words  but 
says  that  he  had  meant  by  them  his  own  body  and 
not  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  The  witnesses,  therefore, 
were  false,  not  because  they  did  not  report  correctly  the 
words  that  had  been  said,  but  because  they  gave  to  them 
a  sense  different  from  that  which  had  been  intended  and 
tmderstood.  So,  as  I  shall  proceed  to  show,  the  author 
of  Daniel  represents  the  prophet  as  having  been  a  wise 
man  indeed ;  but  his  wise  man  was  one  whose  manner  of 
life  was  in  entire  harmony  with  the  teachings  of  the  law 
and  of  the  prophets,  whereas  the  wise  man  of  the  critics 
is  the  baseless  fabric  of  their  own  imagination.  But 
let  us  to  the  proof. 

Objections  Stated 

A  writer  who  makes  a  pious  Jew  and  one  true  to  the  law 
to  have  been  admitted  into  the  society  of  the  Chaldean 
Magicians  can  only  have  possessed  very  confused  notions 
of  the  latter.^ 

Other  indications  adduced  to  show  that  the  Book  is  not 
the  work  of  a  contemporary,  are  such  as  the  following: — 
The  improbability  that  Daniel,  a  strict  Jew,  should  have 
suffered  himself  to  be  initiated  into  the  class  of  Chal- 
dean "wise  men,"  or  should  have  been  admitted  by  the 
wise  men  themselves.* 

How  explain  the  assertion  that  Daniel,  a  strict  Jew,  was 
« ComiU,  p.  338.      ,  ^  Driver,  p.  500,  h. 

24 


2>7o  The  Book  of  Daniel 

made  chief  of  the  heathen  sages  of  Babylon?  (ii,  48,  iv,  6).' 
Assumptions  Involved 

There  are  several  assumptions  in  these  objections. 

1.  That  a  strict,  or  pious,  Jew,  and  one  true  to  the 
law,  could  not  have  been  the  chief  of  the  "wise  men" 
of  Babylon  without  besmirching  his  reputation  and 
injuring  his  character. 

2.  That  a  Jewish  writer  at  the  time  of  the  Macca- 
bees could  have  been  capable  of  making  the  pious  hero 
of  a  fiction  to  have  been  a  member  of  the  heathen 
society  of  magicians,  or  Chaldeans;  but  that  it  i3 
improbable  that  a  real  Daniel  of  the  sixth  century 
B.C.  can  have  been  a  member  of  such  a  class. 

3.  That  an  author  thus  writing  can  only  have  had 
very  confused  notions  of  what  such  magicians  were. 

4.  That  Daniel  must  have  been  initiated  into  the 
mysteries  of  such  a  society. 

5.  That  the  chief  of  such  a  society  must  himself 
have  been  guilty  of  practicing  the  black  art. 

6.  That  the  wise  men  themselves  admitted  him  into 
the  class  of  the  Chaldeans. 

Answer  to  the  Objections 

Before  proceeding  to  the  discussion  of  these  assump- 
tions, let  us  quote  in  full  the  statements  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  with  reference  to  Daniers  relation  to  the  wise 
men. 

I.  Nebuchadnezzar  had  him  trained  in  the  learning 
and  tongue  of  the  Chaldeans  (Dan.  i,  3-5)  so  that  he 
might  be  able  to  stand  before  the  king,  and  the  king 
approved  of  his  education  (i,  18-20). 

*  Bevan,  The  Book  of  Daniel,  p.  21. 


The  Wise  Men  371 

2.  God  gave  him  grace  and  mercy  before  the  prince 
of  the  eimuchs  (i,  9)  and  knowledge  and  discernment 
in  all  literature  (book-learning)  and  wisdom  (i,  17). 

3.  The  king  of  Babylon  found  him  ten  times  better 
than  all  the  magicians  and  enchanters  which  were  in  all 
his  kingdom  in  all  matters  of  wisdom  and  understanding 
(i,  20). 

4.  When  the  king  called  the  magicians,  enchanters, 
sorcerers  and  Chaldeans  to  tell  the  king  his  dream, 
Daniel  was  not  among  them  (ii,  4-9).  It  was  only 
when  the  king  commanded  to  kill  all  the  wise  men  of 
Babylon  that  they  sought  Daniel  and  his  companions 
to  slay  them  (ii,  13). 

5.  The  king  made  Daniel  great  and  chief  of  the 
sagans  over  the  Vvise  men  of  Babylon  (ii,  46-49). 

6.  In  iv,  9,  he  is  called  rab  hartumaya  or  chief  of  the 
magicians,  or  sacred  scribes. 

7.  In  V,  II,  the  queen  says  that  he  had  been  made 
master  of  scribes,  exorcists,  astrologers  (mathemati- 
cians), and  fortime  tellers. 

8.  He  interpreted  dreams  and  omens  by  the  power 
of  God  given  in  answer  to  prayer  (ii,  17-23). 

We  find  in  these  passages  the  following  points  regard- 
ing Daniel: 

1.  He  was  taught  all  the  book-learning  and  the 
languages  of  the  Chaldeans,  so  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
found  him  to  be  ten  times  better  than  the  sacred  scribes 
and  enchanters  (the  hartummim  and  ashshafim)  that 
were  in  all  his  kingdom. 

2.  God  gave  him  knowledge  and  discernment  in  alli 
book-learning  and  wisdom  and  ability  through  prayer 
to  interpret  dreams  and  omens. 

3.  He  was  among  the  wise  men  (Jiakkimin)  of  Baby- 
lon, but  is  not  said  to  have  been  among  the  sacred 


372  The  Book  of  Daniel 

scribes,  the  priestly  enchanters  or  exorcists,  the  sorcer- 
ers, or  wizards,  nor  among  the  Chaldeans,  astrologers, 
or  mathematicians. 

4.  He  was  chief  of  the  sagans  over  the  wise  men 
(hakkamin)  of  Babylon;  and,  also,  chief  of  the  sacred 
scribes,  priestly  enchanters,  Chaldeans,  or  astrologers. 

The  six  assumptions  with  regard  to  Daniel's  relation 
to  the  *Vise  men"  are  so  inextricably  interwoven  that 
we  shall  make  a  general  discussion  of  the  whole  subject, 
aiming  to  show  that  they  all  are  false.  And  first, 
it  may  be  asked,  if  the  objectors  really  think  that  it  was 
wrong  for  a  pious  Jew  to  be  taught  the  learning  and  the 
tongue  of  the  Chaldeans.  If  so,  then  Moses  was  wrong 
to  be  instructed  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians 
and  Paul  to  have  studied  in  the  heathen  university  at 
Tarsus.  Besides,  the  book  says  (i,  17)  that  "God  gave 
him  [i.  e.,  Daniel]  knowledge  and  skill  in  all  learning 
and  wisdom.'* 

Or,  can  it  have  been  wrong  for  him  "to  have  imder- 
standing  in  all  visions  and  dreams"  (i,  17)?  Then 
it  must  have  been  wrong  for  Joseph,  also,  to  have 
interpreted  the  dreams  of  Pharaoh  and  his  officers;  and 
yet  both  Joseph  himself  and  Pharaoh  and  Stephen 
attribute  his  ability  to  God.  Besides,  in  the  book  of 
Daniel,  both  Daniel  himself  and  the  wise  men  and 
Nebuchadnezzar  ascribe  Daniel's  power  of  interpreting 
dreams  and  visions  to  the  direct  intervention  of  God. 

Or,  did  "the  law"  to  which  he  is  said  to  have  been 
true,  prohibit  interpretations  of  dreams  and  visions? 

As  to  dreams,  one  of  the  characteristics  of  the  Elo- 
hist  (E),  as  opposed  to  the  Jehovist,  is  said  to  be  his 
mentioning  dreams  so  often.  But  this  is  always  done 
without  any  blame  being  attached  to  the  belief  in  them, 
or  to  an  attempted  interpretation  of  them.     According 


The  Wise  Men  373 

to  Dillmann,  Numbers  xxii,  6,  belongs  to  the  Jehovist. 
It  reads  as  follows:  "If  there  be  a  prophet  among  you, 
I  Jehovah  will  speak  imto  him  in  a  dream. "  Certainly 
there  is  no  disapprobation  here.  In  Deuteronomy,  the 
only  reference  to  dreams  is  in  the  thirteenth  chapter, 
where  a  prophet  or  a  dreamer  of  dreams  who  should 
tempt  the  people  to  serve  other  gods  is  condemned  to 
death;  the  dreamer  being  put  in  the  same  class  as  the 
prophet. 

As  to  visions,  the  Jehovist  in  Genesis  xv,  i,  repre- 
sents God  as  speaking  to  Abraham  in  a  vision,  and 
nearly  all  the  great  early  prophets  assert  that  God 
spake  to  them  in  visions;  so  that  it  is  obvious  that  a 
belief  neither  in  dreams  nor  in  visions,  nor  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  them,  can  have  been  wrong,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  prophets.  That  Daniel,  also,  is  said  to  have 
seen  visions,  is  in  harmony  with  the  strictest  orthodoxy 
and  the  most  devoted  piety  of  those  that  were  true  to 
the  law  from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  time  when 
in  the  New  Testament  the  young  men  saw  visions  and 
the  old  men  dreamed  dreams. 

If  Daniel,  then,  did  anything  unbecoming  a  strict 
Jew,  it  must  have  consisted  in  the  fact  that  he  allowed 
himself  to  be  foimd  in  bad  company,  that  there  was 
something  in  the  dogmas,  or  practices,  of  the  "wise 
men,"  that  was  inconsistent  with  a  man  of  piety  becom- 
ing a  master  of  their  wisdom,  even  though  he  may  not 
have  accepted  their  dogmas,  nor  taken  part  in  their 
practices. 

Now,  let  us  waive  for  the  present  the  question  as  to 
whether  Daniel  did  actually  become  a  member  of  the 
society  of  the  Chaldean  wise  men,  and  consider  simply 
what  were  the  tenets  and  practices  of  these  so-called 
"wise  men. "     At  the  outset,  let  it  be  said,  that  there  is 


374  The  Book  of  Daniel 

much  danger  here  of  darkening  words  without  knowl- 
edge, just  because  it  is  impossible  for  us  with  our 
present  means  of  information  to  form  a  clear  and  correct 
conception  of  what  the  Babylonian  wise  men  were. 
This  difficulty  is  partly  one  of  language,  partly  one  of 
literature.  As  to  literature,  there  is  nothing  from  the 
Babylonians  themselves  bearing  directly  on  the  subject. 
As  to  language,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  terms 
in  Daniel  are  either  in  a  peculiar  Aramaic  dialect,  or  in 
Hebrew,  and  that  it  is  impossible  with  our  present 
knowledge  to  determine  what  Babylonian  words  are 
equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  Aramaic  and  Hebrew 
expressions. 

Taking  up,  first,  the  most  general  term  used  in  Daniel, 
that  which  is  translated  by  "wise  men,"  we  find  that 
the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  expresses  this  idea  by  the  word 
hakkim.  This  word  and  its  congeners  are  employed  in 
a  good  sense  in  every  Aramaic  dialect.  So  on  the  Pan- 
ammu  Inscription  of  about  725  B.C.,  from  northern 
Syria,  the  king  speaks  of  his  wisdom  and  righteousness. 
So,  also,  in  the  Targum  of  Onkelos  in  Deut,  i,  13,  and 
after;  where  it  regularly  renders  the  Hebrew  hakam 
^Vise."  So,  also,  the  Samaritan  Targum  commonly 
translates  the  Hebrew  word  hakam  by  hakkim;  an  ex- 
ception being  Gen.  xli,  8,  where  the  Samaritan  has  the 
word  ^tip  sorcerer.  So,  also,  in  the  Syriac  Aramaic, 
both  in  the  Peshitto  version  of  the  Scriptures  and  else- 
where, the  word  is  used  in  a  good  sense.  This  is  true, 
likewise,  in  Arabic,  both  in  the  translation  of  the 
Scriptures  and  elsewhere.  Lane,  in  his  great  Arabic 
dictionary,  gives  none  but  good  senses  for  the  root 
and  its  derivatives  in  general.  Hakim  is  "a  sage,  a 
philosopher,  a  physician** ;  while  hikma  is  "a  knowledge 
of  the  true  nature  of  things  and  acting  according  to  the 


The  Wise  Men  375 

requirements  thereof. "  In  Hebrew,  moreover,  the  word 
''wise"  is  never  used  in  a  bad  sense.'  The  only  ''wise 
men'*  who  are  condemned  are  those  who  are  wise  in 
their  own  eyes  and  not  in  reality  (Is.  v,  21).  In  later 
Hebrew,  too,  the  wise  are  commended,  as  in  Ecclesias- 
ticus  vi,  32,  and  in  the  Zadokite  Fragments  2 13  and  6:3. 

In  Babylonian,  the  noim  from  this  root  has  not  been 
found,  but  the  verb,  which  has  been  found  several 
times,  is  used  always  in  a  good  sense.  The  Assyrio- 
Babylonian  language,  however,  has  a  number  of  words, 
which  may  be  rendered  by  "wise  man";  but  not  one 
of  these  is  employed  specifically  or  by  itself  to  denote 
any  class  of  sorcerers  or  astrologers;  much  less  were 
these  sorcerers  the  only  wise  men.  * 

In  Ethiopic,  also,  according  to  Dillman's  dictionary 
hakim  and  tahib,  the  latter  the  ordinary  word  for  wise 
man,  are  used  only  in  a  good  sense.  ^ 

*  Pharaoh,  Gen.  xli,  8,  and  Ex.  vii,  1 1 ;  the  king  of  Babylon,  Jer.  1,  35, 
and  li,  57;  the  king  of  Gebal,  Ezek.  xxvii,  9;  the  king  of  Tyre,  Ezek. 
xxvii,  8;  king  Solomon  and  his  son  Rehoboam,  2  Ch.  ii,  13;  Ahasuerus, 
Es.  vi,  13;  and  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel,  Deut.  i,  13,  Ex.  xxviii,  3; 
— allhave  their  wise  men.  "  Wise  men  "  are  commended  in  Prov.  xii,  18, 
xiii,  20,  xiv,  3. 

'  The  most  common  of  these  words  is  probably  mudu  from  the  root 
idUf  "  to  know, "  a  root  common  to  Ass.  Bab.  with  Aramaic  and  Hebrew. 
This  word  is  used  of  the  gods,  Nebo  and  Shamash,  of  the  kings  like 
Sargon,  Sennacherib,  and  Nebuchadnezzar;  and  of  other  men,  but 
always  in  a  good  sense. 

Another  word  is  imku  (or  emku)  from  a  root  also  found  in  Hebrew 
meaning  "  to  be  deep. "  The  inscriptions  speak  of  the  wise  heart  of  Ea; 
of  the  wise  princes  Nabunaid  and  Nabu-balatsu-ikbi;  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
the  wise  one  (often) ;  of  the  wise  master-builders,  etc. 

Ershu  (or  irshu)  from  a  root  meaning  "to  decide"  is  used  as  an 
appellation  for  the  gods  Sin  and  Ea  and  for  kings  like  Sennacherib  and 
Nebuchadnezzar.  Itpishu,  also,  is  used  of  the  gods  Damkina,  Nebo,  and 
Ninib,  and  of  the  kings  Sargon,  Sennacherib,  and  Nebuchadnezzar. 

3  Maimer  from  the  verb  'amara  "to  show,  to  know,"  is  used  often 
in  the  Ethiopic  version  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  sense  of  "wizard" 


2)7^  The  Book  of  Daniel 

From  the  uses  of  the  words  for  wise  men  in  the 
various  Semitic  languages,  it  is  clear,  therefore,  that 
there  can  have  been  nothing  wrong  in  belonging  to  the 
class  of  wise  men  as  such.  Nor  does  the  Bible,  nor 
Nebuchadnezzar,  even  intimate  that  there  was.  The 
wise  men  of  the  book  of  Daniel  were  to  be  slain  because 
a  tyrant  in  his  wrath  at  a  portion  of  them  who  claimed 
to  do  more  than  they  were  able  to  perform,  or  of  whom 
at  least  the  king  demanded  more  than  it  was  possible 
for  them  to  know,  had  failed  to  meet  his  expectations. 
The  decree  to  kill  all  was  not  justified  by  the  offense  of  a 
portion  merely  of  the  so-called  wise  men.  But  even  if 
it  had  been  impossible  for  any  of  the  wise  men  to  meet 
the  demand  of  the  king,  it  would  not  prove  that  it  was 
v/rong  for  a  pious  Jew  to  be  a  wise  man.  What  wise 
man  of  to-day  would  be  able  to  tell  a  man  a  dream  that 
he  had  forgotten?  Such  ignorance  has  nothing  to  do 
Vvith  piety.  It  is  simply  a  limitation  common  to  human- 
ity. For  as  Daniel  truly  says,  "The  secret  which  the 
king  was  asking  no  wise  men  were  able  to  make  known, 
but  there  is  a  God  in  heaven  who  revealeth  secrets.*' 
The  wise  men  are  not  blamed  for  not  knowing  what 
God  alone  could  know. 

As  to  the  word  'ashshaph  (magician)  in  the  Hebrew  of 
Daniel  i,  20,  ii,  2,  and  in  the  Aramaic  of  ii,  10,  and 
the  word  'asheph  of  ii,  27,  iv,  4,  v,  7,  11,  15,  it  may  be 
said,  first,  that  neither  derivative,  nor  root,  occurs  any- 
where else  in  the  Old  Testament.  Both  the  verb  and 
several  nouns  occur  in  Syriac  in  the  sense  of  "enchant, 
enchanter";  but  not  apparently  in  any  other  Aramaic 

to  translate  the  Greek  t^oxtt^s,  Heb.  yidde'oni  and  the  Greek  crroxacrrvs, 
Heb.  ^osem.  It  renders,  also,  the  Greek  x''-^^^^<>''  in  Dan.  ii,  2,  and 
•ya^ap-qvoi  in  Dan.  iv,  3,  v,  15.  In  most  of  these  cases  the  Arabic  ver- 
sions use  '  arraf,  "  wizard,"   from  the  verb  'arafa,  "  to  know." 


The  Wise  Men  377 

dialect,  nor  in  Arabic,  nor  Ethiopic.  In  Babylonian, 
however,  the  root  is  met  with  in  various  forms;  and  the 
two  forms  corresponding  exactly  to  'ashshaph  and 
^asheph  axe  found  also. ' 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  the  root  and  of  the 
forms  as  we  find  them  in  Babylonian?^ 

From  the  authorities  that  we  possess  and  the  texts 
cited  by  them,  it  is  evident,  that  in  the  estimation  of  the 
Babylonians  the  office  and  fimctions  of  the  'ashipu  and 
of  the  'ashshapu  were  beneficent  to  the  community. 
They  removed  bans  and  exorcised  evil  spirits  and  dis- 
ease and  caused  good  visions  and  dreams.  A  common 
verb  to  denote  their  method  of  activity  is  pasharu, 
*'to  loose";  the  same  verb  that  is  employed  in  Daniel 
to  denote  what  they  were  expected  by  Nebuchadnez- 
zar and  Belshazzar  to  do.  It  was  part  of  their  busi- 
ness to  see  that  "bad  depressing  dreams'*  {shunati 
nashdati)  did  not  appear,  caused  by  demons  who  **  seized 
the  side  of  one's  bed  and  worried  and  attacked  one. "  ^ 

Another  term  found   in   Daniel  ^  is  hartom  or  har- 


*  A  most  remarkable  fact  in  its  bearing  upon  the  correctness  of  the 
sources  and  transmission  of  the  text  of  Daniel,  when  we  consider  that 
these  words  are  not  found  outside  of  Assyrio-Babylonian  except  in  the 
book  of  Daniel.  In  the  Peshitto  version  of  Daniel,  'ashuph  is  used  to 
translate  both  'asheph  and  'ashshaph.  'AshsJiaph  is  found  in  New  He- 
brew nowhere  but  in  commentaries  on  Daniel.  See  Jastrow's  Diet. 
in  loc. 

»  The  best  sources  of  our  information  are  Tallquist:  The  Assyrian 
Incantation-series  Maklu;  Zimmem  in  his  chapter  on  the  ritual  table  for 
the  *ashipu  found  on  pages  122-175  of  his  work  entitled:  Contributions 
to  the  Knowledge  oftJie  Babylonian  Religion  {Beitrage  zur  Kenntniss,  etc.); 
the  work  of  Dr.  Walther  Schrank:  Babylonian  Rites  of  Purifications, 
especially  in  their  relation  to  Priests  and  Exorcists  {Babylonische  Siihnriten 
besonders  mit  Riicksicht  auf  Priester  und  Ltisser);  and  King:  Babylonian 
Magic.  3  Frank,  Bab.  Bcsch-orungsreliefs,  pp.  88,  90. 

<In  i,  20,  and  ii,  2,  in  Hebrew,  and  in  ii,  10,  27,  iv,  4,  6,  and  v,  II  in 
Aramaic. 


378  The  Book  of  Daniel 

turn.  This  word  is  found,  also,  in  the  Hebrew  of  Gen. 
xli,  8,  24,  and  in  Ex.  vii,  11,  22,  viii,  3,  14,  15,  ix,  11 
(pis).  Since  this  word  occurs  in  no  other  Aramaic  dia- 
lect except  that  of  Daniel,  no  light  upon  its  meaning  in 
Daniel  can  be  derived  from  these  sources.  ^  When  we 
remember  the  part  which  the  name  bears  in  Egyp- 
tian sorcery,  we  can  well  believe,  however,  that  their 
chief  sorcerers  received  their  designation  from  the  fact 
that  they  had  power  in  calling  names,  ^  and  that  the 
Arameans  and  Hebrews  adopted  the  name  to  denote 
those  who  bound  or  freed  by  the  power  of  names. 

*  In  the  Aramaic  of  the  Targum  of  Onkelos,  of  the  Samaritan  Tar- 
gum,  and  of  the  Syriac  Peshitto,  hartom  is  always  rendered  by  harrashf 
except  in  the  Peshitto  of  Daniel  v,  11,  where  it  is  rendered  "wise  men." 
The  Arabic  of  Saadya's  translation  of  the  Pentateuch  renders  it  by 
ulema,  "wise  men,"  except  in  Ex.  vii,  ii,  22,  where  it  has  sahana, 
"enchanter."  The  Arabic  of  Daniel  always  gives  ra^^a,  "charmer." 
The  usual  translation  in  the  LXX  and  Theodotion  is  *epaoidos,  "enchan- 
ter"; though  it  is  rendered  by  *  'wise  men"  in  the  LXX  of  Daniel  i,  20,  and 
ii,  10.  The  derivation  and  primary  meaning  of  the  word  are  so  uncertain 
that  it  is  impossible  to  dogmatize  about  them.  Probably  the  majority 
of  scholars  who  have  discussed  the  subject  derive  the  word  from  heret, 
"stylus,"  by  affixing  an  m.  The  meaning  then  would  be  scribe,  or 
engraver;  and  the  word  would  correspond  in  sense  to  the  Egyptian 
sacred  scribe  spoken  of  by  the  Greek  writers. 

Hoffman  compares  it  to  an  Arabic  word  with  the  same  four  radicals 
meaning  "nose,"  and  would  make  the  original  sense  to  have  been  one 
who  sang  through  the  nose,  hence  "chanter,"  "having  the  nose  in  the 
air."  Lane  defines  the  word  as  having  the  meaning  "chief,"  "fore- 
most in  affairs  and  in  the  military  forces."  Nearly  everyone  quotes 
the  opinions  of  Jablonsky  and  Rossi  that  it  may  be  an  Egyptian  word 
denoting  "thaimiaturgus"  or  "guardian  of  secret  things";  but  these  are 
both  so  far-fetched  as  to  be  most  unlikely.  It  would,  according  to  the 
rules  of  transliteration  from  Egyptian  into  Hebrew,  be  capable  of  deri- 
vation from  hr,  "chief,"  and  dm,  "to  name,"  and  would  then  mean 
"chief  of  the  spellbinders."^ 

'  Compare  the  significance  attributed  to  the  name  of  Solomon  in  the 
Arabian  Nights. 

"  See  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  i.  168;  and  Griffith's  Stories  of 
the  High  Priests  of  Memphis, 


The  Wise  Men  379 

This  power  of  the  name  played  a  prominent  part  in 
Babylonian  religion  also.  In  the  treatment  of  disease, 
the  name  of  the  demon  or  disease  to  be  exorcised  had 
to  be  mentioned,  and,  also,  the  name  of  the  god  by 
whose  power  the  exorcism  was  accomplished.  In  order 
to  gain  the  help  of  the  god  without  which  the  devil  or 
demon  could  not  be  expelled,  the  priests  would  recite  his 
praises  and  chant  their  prayers  and  supplications;  and 
from  this  essential  factor  of  the  art  of  exorcism  arose 
perhaps  the  hymns  of  praise  which  are  so  often  fotmd 
among  the  incantations  of  the  Babylonians.  ^ 

As  to  the  meaning  of  gazer,  the  last  term  employed 
in  Daniel  to  denote  classes  of  wise  men,  very  little 
can  be  said  positively.  The  root  does  not  occur  in 
Assyrio-Babylonian;  nor  is  a  word  from  the  root 
having  a  satisfactory  meaning  to  be  foimd  in  any 
other  Aramaic  dialects,  nor  in  Arabic,  Hebrew,  or 
Ethiopic* 

*  See  Shrank:  Bahylonische  Siihnriten,  pp.  20-27;  Thompson:  The 
Devils  and  Evil  Spirits  in  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  passim;  Jastrow:  Die 
Religion  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens;  and'R.ogQrs:  The  Religion  of  Baby- 
lonia and  Assyria,  p.  146.  Compare  also  the  numerous  cases  of  this 
kind  of  magic  in  the  Arabian  Nights. 

» In  Hebrew,  the  verb  gazar  is  found  in  the  meaning  "decide,  decree, " 
in  Job.  xxii,  28,  where  EHphaz  says  to  Job:  "Thou  shalt  also  decree  a. 
thing  and  it  shall  be  established  unto  thee";  and  in  Esther  ii,  i,  where  it 
is  said  that  Ahasuerus  remembered  Vashti  and  what  had  been  done 
against  her.  The  Targum  of  Onkelos  uses  it  in  Ex.  xv,  25,  to  translate 
the  verb  "to  establish"  in  the  phrase  "to  establish  a  statute,"  as  the 
equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  sim,  to  establish.  This  passage  may  afford 
us  the  missing  link  with  which  to  connect  the  Aramaic  gazer  with  the 
Babylonian,  shamu  =  lieh.  sim.  The  mushim  shimtu  is  "the  decreer 
of  decrees,  or  oracles. "  We  may  compare  the  synonym  of  shimtu,  i.  e., 
parts tu,  "oracle,"  which  is  from  a  root  meaning  "to  cut,  decide,"  just 
as  gezira,  "decree, "  in  Aramaic  is  from  the  root  gezar,  "to  cut,  decide. " 
Gazer,  then,  would  be  the  translation  of  the  Babylonian  mushim,  or 
paris,  and  could  mean  a  man  who  made  out,  or  conveyed  to  men  the 
decrees  of  the  gods.    He  would  be  the  earthly  representative  of  the 


380  The  Book  of  Daniel 

The  Hebrew  word  mekashshefim  is  never  used  of  the 
wise  men.  In  Daniel  ii,  2,  the  only  place  in  which  it 
occurs  in  the  book,  the  English  version  renders  it  by 
sorcerers.  Neither  the  root  of  this  word  nor  any  deri- 
vation of  the  root  was  used  in  this  sense  in  any  Aramaic 
dialect.  ^ 

The  Hebrew  employs  the  noun  kashp  always  in  the 
bad  sense  of  an  "evil  enchantment,"  and  the  nomen 
agentis  of  this  is  equivalent  in  meaning  to  the  English 
''wizard,  witch,  or  sorcerer."  The  word  for  "witch- 
ery or  witchcraft"  is  found  six  times  in  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  to  wit:  in  Is.  xlvii,  9,  12;  Mi.  v,  ii;  Na.  iii,4 
his,  and  in  2  Ki.  ix,  22 .  The  word  mekashsheph,  *  *  wizard 
or  sorcerer,"  is  found  in  Deut.  xviii,  10,  Ex.  vii,  li; 
Mai.  iii,  5,  and  Dan.  ii,  2,  while  its  feminine  occurs 
in  Ex.  xxii,  17.  The  verb  kishsheph  is  found  only  in  2 
Ch.  xxxiii,  6.  All  of  these  except  the  participial  form  are 
found  in  Babylonian  and  were  probably  borrowed 
from  it ;  or  possibly  go  back  to  a  time  when  Babylonian 
and  Hebrew  were  one.  The  Sumerian  sign  uh  denotes 
the  Babylonian  words  for  "poison,  spittle,  blood,  and 
kishpu,^^  Perhaps  the  best  illustration  of  the  relation 
of  witchcraft  to  the  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  to  be 
found  in  the  prayer  addressed  to  Marduk  by  a  sick  man 
through  his  priest  (mashmashu) .  As  King  translates 
this  portion  of  the  prayer  in  his  Babylonian  Magicy  p. 
62,  it  reads: 


heavenly  "mushim"  of  Ea,  or  of  Bel,  and  the  other  great  gods  who 
establish  the  fates.     Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  III,  obv.  5,  14. 

His  place  of  abode,  and  activity,  may  well  have  been  the  "  Dul-Azag, " 
"place  of  fates, "  "chamber  of  fates, "  of  which  Nebuchadnezzar  speaks 
(Langdon,  xv,  Col.  ii,  54,  and  Col.  v,  12-14)  and  which  Delitzsch  thinks 
to  have  been  "the  earthly  image  of  the  heavenly  Upshukkinnaku. '* 

*  In  the  Syriac  the  verb  is  used  in  a  good  sense  for  "  to  pray. " 


The  Wise  Men  381 

O  my  God,  by  the  command  of  thy  mouth  may  there 
never  approach  any  evil,  the  magic  of  the  sorcerer  and  of 
the  sorceress  (upish  kashshapi  u  kashshapti)  \  may  there 
never  approach  me  the  poisons  of  the  evil  men;  may  there 
never  approach  the  evil  of  charms  of  powers  and  portents 
of  heaven  and  of  earth. 

In  number  50,  22,  of  the  same  book  Ashurbani- 
pal  prays  that  his  god  may  free  him  from  evil  be- 
witchment {pushir  kishpiya),  using  the  same  verb 
which  we  find  so  often  in  Daniel  for  "interpret."  To 
practice  sorcery  was  punishable  with  death  by  drown- 
ing, according  to  the  law  of  Hammurabi. '  This  was  the 
law  also,  among  the  Hebrews:  "Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a 
witch  to  live"  (Ex.  xxii,  17).  The  question  might  be 
asked,  then,  why  Nebuchadnezzar  summoned  the 
sorcerers  to  interpret  his  dream.  The  text  given  in 
Behrens^  would  explain  this,  if  we  accept  the  reading 
which  permits  the  translation:  "from  before  the  wind 
may  the  king  be  bewitched."^  According  to  this,  a 
man  might  be  bewitched  for  his  good  against  some  evil. 
This,  then,  may  have  been  the  reason  why  Nebuchad- 
nezzar summoned  the  wizards.  They  sent  bad  dreams; 
therefore,  they  should  explain  them,  and  tell  what  they 
had  sent.  ^ 

^  Harper,  The  Code  of  Hammurabi,  sec.  2. 
^  Ass.  Bab.  Brief e  CuUischen  Inhalis,  p.  17, 

3  Ishtu  pan  zigi  sharru  likashshaph. 

See  also  Harper,  vii,  660,  and  i,  18,  11,  and  25;  and  Behrens,  p.  16. 

4  It  must  be  remembered,  too,  that  the  Piel  stem  in  Hebrew  may  ex- 
press "the  taking  away  of  the  object  denoted  by  the  noun, "  e.  g.,  chittc\ 
"to  take  away  sin";  dishshen,  "to  take  away  the  ashes";  sheresh,  "to 
root  out."  (See  Cowley's  Gesenius,  §52h.)  This  usage  is  found,  also, 
in  Arabic,  Aramaic,  and  New  Hebrew  (see  Wright's  Arab.  Gram.,  vol. 
i,  §41  and  Siegfried  &  Strack's  N.  II.  Gram).  If  we  take  the  intensive  in 
this  sense  in  likashshaph,  it  would  mean  "may  [the  king]  be  freed  from 
witchcraft. "     This  privative  sense  may  possibly  occur  in  the  phrase 


382  The  Book  of  Daniel 

The  results  of  this  investigation  of  the  names  of  the 
classes  of  wise  men  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Daniel 
might  be  summed  up  by  saying  that  the  'ashephs  and 
'ashshaphs  were  certainly  exorcists  who  used  chants 
and  purifications  (?)  to  drive  out  disease  and  to  avert 
calamity;  that  the  mekashshephs  were  wizards,  who 
bound  their  victims  by  means  of  philters,  spittle,  etc., 
and  had  power  to  send  bad  dreams  and  evil  spirits  among 
them,  as  well  as  to  release  them  from  the  witcheries 
which  they  had  caused;  that  the  gazers  and  kaldus 
were  astrologers  and  augurs,  who  told  fortunes,  foretold 
plagues,  interpreted  omens  and  dreams,  forecasted  horo- 
scopes or  nativities,  etc. ;  that  the  hartums  were  sacred 
scribes  who  wrote  prescriptions  and  formulas  for  the 
use  of  the  sick  and  those  who  attempted  to  cure  them, 
and  "spellbinders"  who  botmd  and  loosed  by  the 
power  of  names  of  potency;  and  that  the  hakims ^  or  wise 
men,  embraced  all  these  and  others  who  were  not 
included  in  these  classes.  Daniel  was  found  by  Nebu- 
chadnezzar to  be  ten  times  better  than  all  the  ^ushshaphs 
and  hartums  of  Babylon.  He  was  made  chief,  or  master, 
of  the  king's  wise  men  (ii,  48),  and  of  his  hartums  (v,  1 1), 
and  of  all  the  classes  mentioned,  except  apparently  the 
wizards, — as  to  whom  it  is  not  said,  at  least,  that  he 
ever  had  anything  to  do  with  them.  It  will  be  noted 
that  nowhere  in  the  Bible  is  connection  with  'ashephs, 
'ashshaphSf  hartums,  gazers,  kaldus,  or  hakkims,  expressly 
forbidden.  Only  the  hakkims,  hartums,  and  mekash- 
shephs are  ever  mentioned  outside  of  Daniel.  The 
first  of  these  three  are  always  spoken  of  with  praise; 
the  second  without  praise  or  blame;  and  the  last  only 

ramankunu  ina  pan  Hi  la  tuhattaa  of  K.  84,  24,  i.  e.,  "Before  God  ye  shall 
not  free  yourselves  from  sin";  and  also  in  dannati,  "distress,"  i.e., 
"deprived  of  strength."     (See  King,  Magic,  p.  94.) 


The  Wise  Men  383 

with  condemnation.  **A  pious  Jew,"  therefore,  "and 
one  true  to  the  law,"  may  certainly  have  studied,  at 
least,  the  sciences  and  arts  practiced  by  these  uncon- 
demned  classes,  without  laying  himself  open  to  the 
charge  of  breaking  the  letter  of  the  law.  We  see  no 
reason,  either,  why  he  may  not  have  studied  all  about 
the  practices  of  the  wizards  without  himself  being  a 
sorcerer. 

Besides,  we  think  it  may  be  rightly  doubted  that  a 
pious  Jew,  that  is,  one  deemed  pious  according  to  the 
estimation  of  the  Jews  of  the  time  of  the  author  of 
Daniel, — whenever  he  lived  and  wrote, — cannot  have 
been  an  astrologer  and  an  exorcist  and  a  dream  inter- 
preter. Josephus  cites,  apparently  with  approval,  a 
statement  of  Berosus,  to  the  effect  that  **Abram  was  a 
man  righteous  and  great  among  the  Chaldeans  and 
skillful  in  the  celestial  science.^  He  says,  also,  that 
one  of  the  Egyptian 

sacred  scribes  Qiierogrammaticoi),  who  were  very  sagacious 
in  foretelling  future  events  truly,  told  the  king  that  about 
this  time  there  would  be  a  child  bom  of  the  Israelites,  who, 
if  he  were  reared,  would  bring  the  Egyptian  dominion  low 
and  would  raise  the  Israelites;  that  he  would  excel  all  men 
in  virtue,  and  obtain  a  glory  that  would  be  remembered 
through  all  ages.* 

This  same  scribe  attempted  to  kill  Moses  at  a  later 
time,  when  as  a  child  and  having  been  adopted  by 
Pharaoh's  daughter,  he  cast  to  the  groimd  and  trod 
upon  the  crown  of  Pharaoh  which  the  latter  had  placed 
upon  his  head;  thus  attesting,  said  the  priest,  his 
prediction  that  this  child  would  bring  the  dominion  of 

» Antiq^.,  I,  vii,  2.  '  Antiq.,  I,  vii,  2. 


384  The  Book  of  Daniel 

Egypt  low. '  * '  Because  of  this  prophecy  the  Egyptians 
abstained  from  killing  him  and  later  made  Moses  general 
of  their  army  against  the  Ethiopians  in  response  to 
their  own  oracles  and  presages."^ 

As  to  Solomon,  moreover,  God  granted  him  to  learn  the 
science  of  demonology  for  the  profit  and  service  of  men, 
and  he  composed  epodes^  by  which  diseases  are  assuaged; 
and  he  left  behind  him  methods  of  treatment  for  exorcists  by 
which  those  who  are  bound  drive  out  the  demons  so  that 
they  never  return,  and  this  method  of  practice  prevails 
with  us  even  now ;  for  I  have  seen  a  certain  one  of  my  own 
country  whose  name  was  Eleazar,  in  the  presence  of  Vespas- 
ian and  his  sons  and  his  chiliarchs  and  the  multitude  of  his 
soldiers,  releasing  people  who  had  been  seized  by  these 
demons,  the  skill  and  wisdom  of  Solomon  being  thus  clearly 
established/ 

Josephus,  moreover,  professes  that  not  merely  he 
himself  had  prophetic  dreams,  but  that  he  had  a  certain 
power  in  interpreting  them.  ^ 

According  to  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  the 
king  of  Egypt  in  Moses'  time  had  a  dream  in  which  he 
saw  all  the  land  of  Egypt  put  in  one  scale  of  a  balance 
and  in  the  other  a  lamb  which  was  heavier  than  all  the 
land  of  Egypt;  upon  which  he  sent  and  called  all  the 
enchanters  Qiarrash)  of  Egypt  and  told  them  his  dream; 
whereupon  Jannes  and  Jambres,  the  chiefs  of  the  en- 
chanters, opened  their  mouths  and  said  to  Pharaoh: 
*  *  A  boy  is  about  to  be  bom  in  the  congregation  of  Israel, 

Mw/zg.,  II,  ix,  7.  ^Id. 

3  That  is,  chants,  such  as  were  used  by  the  enchanters  of  Babylon 
and  Egypt  and  by  the  Magi.    Herodotus,  I,  132. 

4  Antig.,  VIII,  ii,  5. 

s  See  Wars  of  the  Jews,  III,  viii,  3,9. 


The  Wise  Men  385 

through  whose  hand  all  the  land  of  Egypt  is  to  be 
destroyed."' 

In  the  book  of  Tobit,  an  evil  spirit  is  said  to  have 
been  exorcised  by  means  of  the  Hver  of  a  fish. ' 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  ^  Simon  Magus  practiced 
his  arts  of  magic  by  using  the  power  of  names  to  drive 
out  evil  spirits. 

The  Lord,  also,  refers  to  such  practices  among  the 
Jews  of  his  time,  when  he  says:  "If  I  by  Beelzebub 
cast  out  demons,  by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out  ? "  ^ 

We  have  thus  shown  that  according  to  the  views  of  the 
Scriptures  and  of  the  ancient  Jews  at  all  times,  there 
was  nothing  wrong  either  in  dreams  or  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  them;  and  that  Jewish  opinion  as  preserved 
in  Josephus,  the  book  of  Tobit,  the  Targum  of  Jona- 
than ben  Uzziel,  and  elsewhere,  did  not  condemn  the 
use  of  incantations  and  the  practice  of  exorcism  and 
other  similar  arts. 

Finally,  we  come  to  consider  the  question  as  to 
whether  Daniel  is  said  to  have  been  a  member  of  any 
of  these  classes  of  dream-interpreters  which  are  men- 
tioned in  his  book.  It  will  be  noted  that  he  is  never 
called  a  hartum  nor  an  ^ashshaphf  but  is  said  to  have 
been  ten  times  better  than  all  of  them  in  knowledge 
and  wisdom.  It  is  not  said  either  that  he  was  an  'asheph 
nor  a  mekashsheph  nor  a  gazer ^  nor  a  kaldu.  That  he 
was  a  hakim  is  rightly  inferred  from  the  fact  that  he 
was  sought  for  to  be  killed,  when  the  decree  went  forth 
that  all  the  wise  men  should  be  killed;  but  elsewhere 
he  is  always  called  chief  {rah)  of  the  wise  men,  or  of  the 
hartumSy  or  of  three  or  four  classes  together.  He  is,  in 
fact,  called  chief  of  all  classes,  except  of  the  mekash- 

»  See  T.  J.  ben  Uzziel  to  Ex.  i,  15.  ^  See  chapters  vi  and  vili. 

3  See  chapter  viii.  <  Matt,  xii,  27. 

35 


386  The  Book  of  Daniel 

shephsy  the  only  class  which  is  directly  condemned  by 
law.  Once  he  is  called  chief  of  the  sagans  over  all  the 
wise  men  of  Babylon.  This  phrase  we  shall  discuss  be- 
low. At  present,  let  us  look  at  the  meaning  of  the  word 
rah,  "chief/'  in  its  relation  to  the  objects,  or  persons, 
over  which  the  rah  was  set.  The  only  point  we  need  to 
discuss  in  this  connection,  is  whether  the  rah  was  neces- 
sarily of  the  same  class  and  practicer  of  the  same  arts 
and  crafts  as  those  who  were  set  under  him.  It  might 
seem  to  most  to  be  sufficient  merely  to  state  as  an  obvi- 
ous fact  not  needing  proof  that  he  might  have  been 
chief  of  the  hartums  and  others  without  himself  being 
one.  But  as  some  have  controverted  it,  and  seem  to 
think  that  Daniel  must  have  been  an  individual  of  the 
same  kind  as  those  over  whom  he  was  set  as  chief,  it 
may  be  well  to  pause  and  discuss  the  term  rah,  as  it  is 
used. 

In  Arabic  rah  is  the  most  ordinary  title  of  God,  occur- 
ring in  the  Koran  as  a  designation  of  the  deity  only  less 
frequently  than  the  word  A  Halt  itself.  He  is  the  lord  of 
all  creatures,  not  because  he  is  like  them  or  of  them,  but 
as  their  maker  and  preserver  and  ruler  and  owner.  So  a 
master  of  slaves  is  not  a  slave,  but  the  owner  of  the 
slaves,  the  dominus.  In  Hebrew,  rah  meant  captain, 
or  master,  or  chief.  Thus,  Nebuzaradan  was  captain 
of  the  guard  Qer.  xli,  lo) ;  Ashpenaz  was  master  of  the 
eunuchs  (Dan.  i.  3) ;  Ahasuerus  had  officers  of  his  house 
(Est.  i.  8);  Jonah's  ship  had  its  master  of  the  ropes 
(Jon.  i,  6).  In  Assyrio-Babylonian  the  word  was  of 
much  more  general  use  than  in  Arabic  or  Hebrew. 
There  were  rahs  set  over  the  gardens  of  the  king,  over 
the  watering  machines,  over  the  treasury,  over  the 
stables,  the  courts,  the  flocks,  the  house,  the  temple, 
the  cities,  the  prisoners;  over  the  governors,  the  cap- 


The  Wise  Men  387 

tains,  the  bowmen,  and  the  divisions  of  the  army;  over 
the  merchants,  the  builders  (?),  the  seers,  enchanters, 
and  exorcists;  there  was  a  captain  of  the  king,  a  chief 
of  the  captains,  or  princes,  of  the  king,  and  a  rab  of  the 
sons  of  the  king,  and  a  chief  of  the  house  of  Belshazzar 
the  son  of  the  king. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  *ashiph,  the  mashmash,  the 
hart  (or  seers),  and  the  zimmeri,  or  enchanters,  all  have 
a  chief.  One  should  remark,  further,  that  a  rab  does 
not  necessarily  perform  the  duties  of  the  ones  over 
whom  he  is  set.  The  soldiers  were  directed  by  their 
rab  and  led  by  him;  but  doubtless  did  many  menial 
duties  from  which  he  would  be  exempt.  The  rab 
of  the  sons  of  the  king  may  have  been  beneath  them  in 
birth,  but  would  be  their  teacher.  No  one  would  hold 
the  rab  responsible  for  all  of  the  acts  or  beHefs  of  the 
scholar,  any  more  than  he  would  hold  Seneca  responsible 
for  Nero,  or  Bossuet  for  Louis  XV.  The  chief  of  the 
chiefs  of  the  king  would  probably  be  the  highest  chief,  or 
lord,  next  to  the  king,  according  to  the  common  Semitic 
idiom  for  expressing  the  superlative  by  putting  a  noun 
in  the  singular  before  the  same  noun  in  the  plural,  as  in 
the  phrase  "king  of  kings  and  lord  of  lords."  From 
these  examples,  it  is  evident  that  a  rab  may  or  may  not 
have  been  of  the  same  knowledge,  class,  dignity,  or 
practice,  as  those  over  whom  he  was  placed.  We 
have  had  secretaries  of  the  navy  who  were  not  trained 
at  Annapolis.  England  has  had  ministers  of  war  who 
were  not  distinguished  generals.  France  has  had  in 
her  cabinet  ministers  of  religion  who  were  not  ecclesi- 
astics. So  the  fact  that  Daniel  was  made  rab  of  the 
wise  men,  or  of  the  hartumSy  and  others,  does  not  prove 
that  he  was  one  of  them,  or  that  he  did  what  they  did. 
The  book  of  Daniel  says  he  knew  ten  times  more  of  real 


388  The  Book  of  Daniel 

knowledge  and  wisdom  than  all  the  '  ashephs  and 
hartums  of  Babylon;  and  that  he  got  his  knowledge  as 
dream-interpreter  from  God  through  prayer,  and  not  by 
divination  or  sorcery.  It  never  calls  him  a  hartuntf 
an  ^ashshaph,  an  'asheph,  a  mekashsheph^  a  kaldu,  or  a 
gazer;  but  a  man  who  was  made  wise  through  study, 
abstinence,  and  the  favor  of  God.  He  may  have  known 
all  the  mysteries  of  the  Babylonian  seers,  priests,  and 
enchanters;  but  there  is  no  evidence  in  the  book  of  Dan- 
iel, nor  anywhere  else,  to  show  that  Daniel  practiced  the 
black  art,  nor  the  heathen  methods  of  divination  in  any 
form,  nor  to  show  that  he  became  a  member  of  any  of 
these  orders.  It  is  said  simply  that  he  was  the  superior 
of  these  in  knowledge  and  wisdom  and  in  power  of 
interpretation  of  dreams  and  omens.  The  means  he 
used  were  proper  according  to  the  precepts  and 
examples  of  the  Scriptures. 

As  to  his  being  rah  of  the  Babylonian  sorcerers  of 
whatever  class,  this  was  an  appointment  of  the  king. 
What  duties  or  functions  were  involved  in  the  office  we 
know  not.  It  may  have  been  simply  an  honorary  title, 
or  the  grant  of  a  position  of  precedency  in  court  func- 
tions and  ceremonies.  That  it  did  not  imply  a  perma- 
nent position  with  onerous  duties  and  continuous  ser\^ice, 
would  seem  to  follow  from  the  fact  that  the  queen 
mother  had  to  recall  to  Belshazzar  that  Nebuchad- 
nezzar had  ever  made  the  appointment.  So  that,  in 
conclusion,  we  can  fairly  claim  that  the  case  against  the 
author  of  Daniel,  on  the  ground  that  he  makes  his  hero, 
though  a  pious  Jew,  to  have  been  a  member  of  a  class  of 
Chaldean  wise  men  contrary  to  the  Jewish  law,  has  not 
been  made  out.  The  charge  has  not  been  proven.  On 
the  contrary,  the  account  of  Daniel  has  been  shown  to 
be  entirely  consistent  with  itself  and  with  the  prerequi- 


The  Wise  Men  389 

site  historical  surroundings,  supposing  it  to  be  a  record 
of  events  which  took  place  at  Babylon  in  the  sixth 
century  B.C. 

Conclusion 

In  the  above  discussion  we  have  shown  that  the  six 
assumptions  mentioned  on  page  370  are  all  false 
and  that  the  objection  to  the  historicity  of  the  book  of 
Daniel  on  the  groimd  that  a  strict  Jew  cannot  have  been 
made  chief  of  the  heathen  sages  of  Babylon,  nor  initiated 
into  their  class,  is  imsupported  by  the  evidence  drawn 
from  the  Jews  themselves,  as  well  as  from  the  monu- 
ments, as  to  what  the  character  of  the  wise  men  really 
was.  We  have  shown,  further,  that  the  objection,  if 
valid,  would  militate  as  much  against  the  ideas  of  the 
pious  Jews  in  the  second  century  B.C.,  as  against  those 
held  by  them  in  the  sixth  century  B.C. ;  inasmuch  as  the 
literary  conception  of  such  a  character  and  the  reception 
of  a  work  based  on  such  a  conception  would  be  as  much 
against  their  ideas  as  the  historical  existence  of  such  a 
man  would  be.  Moreover,  we  have  shown  that  "the 
confused  notions**  about  Daniel  in  his  relations  to  the 
wise  men  of  Babylon,  as  well  as  about  these  wise  men, 
are  true  not  so  much  of  the  author  of  Daniel  as  of  those 
who  criticize  the  statements  of  the  book  in  reference 
to  them.  And  finally,  we  have  shown  that  there  is 
no  reason  for  believing  that  Daniel  may  not  have  been 
and  done  all  that  the  book  of  Daniel  says  that  he  was 
and  did,  without  any  infringement  of  the  law  or  the  pro- 
phets, or  contravention  of  the  religious  ideas  of  the 
Jews  at  any  time  of  their  history.  ,  ^       *^ 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  PRINCIPAL  WORKS  CITED 

AJSLL — The  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Literature  and  Language, 
American  Journal  of  Insanity. 

Anderson,  Sir  Robert.     Daniel  in  the  Critics'  Den.    New  York. 
AssEMANi,  J.  S.     Bihliotheca  Orientalis,  etc.     Rome,  17 19-1728. 

EphrcBmi  Syri  Opera  omnia,  etc.     Rome,  1 737-1 746. 

BA — Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie.     Leipzig,  1890. 

Bahr,  J.  C.  F.     Ctesias  Cnidius,  Operum  reliquace.     Frankfurt,  1824. 

Bartholomae,  Ch.     AUiranisches  Worterhuch.     Strassburg,  1904. 

BE — Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

Behistun  Inscription.    See  Bezold,  Spiegel,  and  Tolman. 

Behrens,  Emil.     Assyrisch-babylonische  Brief e  kUltischen,  Inhalts  aus 

der  Sangonidenzeit.     Hinrichs,  1906. 
B EHRMANN,  George.     Das  Buch  Daniel.     G6ttingen,  1894. 
Berosus.     See  Cory,  Ancient  Fragments. 
Bertholdt,  L.    Daniel.    Erlangen,  1806. 
Bevan,  a.  R.     a  Short  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Daniel.    Cambridge, 

1892. 
Bezold,  Carl.     Catalogue  of  the  Cuneiform  Tablets  in  the  Koujundjik 

Collection  of  the  British  Museum,  i88g-i8QQ. 

Die  Achdmenideninschriften.     Hinrichs,  1882. 

Br. — Bninnow,  q.  v. 

Breasted,  J.  H.     A  History  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians.     New  York,  1908. 

Ancient  Records  of  Egypt.     Chicago,  1906. 

Brederik,  Emil.    Konkordanz  zum  Targum  Onkelos.    Giessen,  1906. 
Brockelmann,    C.     Lexicon   Syriacum.     Edinburgh,    1895. 
Brunnow,  R.  E.     a  Classified  List  of  all  Simple  and  Compound  Cunei- 
form Ideographs,  etc.     Brill,  1889. 
Brugsch  and  Bouriant.    Le  Livre  des  Rois.    Cairo,  1887. 
BuRNOUF,  E.     Dictionaire  Classique,  Sanscrit- Frangais,  Paris,  1866. 
BuRRELL,  R.  D.,  M.D.     The  Insane  Kings  of  the  Bible.    See  American 

Journal  of  Insanity,  1894. 
Cam. — Strassmaier's  Inschriften  von  Cambyses. 
CIS — Corpus  Inscriptionum  Semiticarum.     Paris,  1881. 
Clay,  Albert  T.     Business    Documents    of   the    Murashu    Sons    of 

Nippur.     (See  Publications  of  the  Babylonian  Section  of  the  U.  of  P. 

Museum,  vol.  ii,  1912,  and  BE  series  A,  vol.  ix,  1898,  vol.  x,  1904.) 

391 


392      Bibliography  of  Principal  Works 

Clay,   Albert  T.     Aramaic   Endorsements  on   the  Documents  of  the 

Marashu  Sons  (in  O.  T.  Studies  in  Memory  of  W.  R.  Harper'. 

Chicago.  1908. 
Miscellaneous  Inscriptions  from  the    Yale  Babylonian   Collection. 

New  Haven,  1916. 

Yale  Oriental  Series,  Babylonian  Texts.     New  Haven,  19 15. 

Babylonian  Records  in  the  .Library  of  J.  Pierpont  Morgan.     New 

York,  1912-1913. 
Cook,  S.  A.     The  Law  of  Moses  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi.     London, 

1903. 

Cooke,  G.  A.     A  Textbook  of  North  Semitic  Inscriptions.     Oxford,  1903. 

CoRNiLL,  Carl.  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    London  and  New  York,  1907. 

Cory,  I.  P.     Ancient  Fragments.     London,  1832. 

CT — Cuneiform  Texts  from  Babylonian  Tablets,  etc.,  in  the  British  Mu- 
seum.    London,  1896  f. 

CuRETON,  W.     Spicilegium-  Syriacum.     London,  1855. 

Cyr — Strassmaier's  Inschriften  von  Cyrus. 

Dalman,  G.  Grammatik  der  jiidisch-Paldstinischen  Aramdisch. 
2d  edition,  Leipzig,  1905. 

Dalman,  S.  H.     Aramdisch  neubehdisches  Worterbuch.   Frankfurt,  1901. 

Dar — Strassmaier's  Inschriften  von  Darius. 

Davis,  John  D.     See  O.  T.  and  Semitic  Studies.     Chicago,  1908. 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich.     Assyrisches  Hand  worterbuch.     Leipzig,  1896. 

Assyrische  Grammatik.     Berlin,  1889. 

DE  Luca,  Marianus.  Institutiones  Juris  Ecclesiastici  Publici.  Neo- 
Eborici,  1901. 

DeWette — Schrader.    Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.    Berlin,  1869. 

Dhorme,  p.  Paul.     Choix  de  textes  assyro-babylonien,  etc.    Paris,  1907. 

DiLLMANN,  C.  F.  A.     Lexicon  Lingu(z  ^thiopicce.     Leipzig,  1865. 

Driver,  S.  R.  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Edinburgh  and  New  York,     ist  edit.  1891,  13th  edit.  1908-1910. 

Ecclesiasticus.     See  Strack  and  Smend. 

Ephraem  Syrus.     Opera  omnia  quce  exstant,  etc.     Romae,  173  7-1 746. 

EusEBius.     Chronikon.     Ed.  Schoene,  Berlin,  1875. 

Evetts,  B.  S.  a.  Inscriptions  of  the  Reigns  of  Evil-Merodach,  Nerig- 
lissar,  and  Laboroarchad.     Leipzig,  1892. 

Farrar,  F.  W.     The  Expositor's  Bible,  the  Book  of  Daniel.     New  York, 

1895. 
Fleischer,    H.    L.     Morgenldndische    Forschungen,    Festschrift,    etc. 

Leipzig,  1875. 
Flugel,  G.     ConcordanicB  Corani  Arabicce.     Leipzig,  1875. 
Frank,   Karl.     Babylonische  Beschwdrungsreliefe.     Hinrichs,    1908. 
Studien  zur  Babylonischen  Religion.     Strassburg,  191 1. 


Bibliography  of  Principal  Works      393 

GA — Gesammelte  Ahhandlungen  von  Paid  de  Lagarde.     Leipzig,  1866. 
Gesenius,  W.     Hebrew  Grammar.     (Kautzsch-Cowley)  Oxford,  1898. 
Gibbon,  Edward.     The  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.    London 

and  New  York,  1 898-1901. 
Griffith,  F.  L.     Stories  of  the  High  Priests  of  Memphis.    Oxford,  1900. 
GuizoT,  F.  P.  G.     a  History  of  France.     New  York,  1885. 
Harper,  R.  F.     Code  of  Hammurabi.    Chicago,  1904. 

Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Letters,  Chicago,  1892-1914. 

Ibn  Hisham.     Das  Leben  Muhammeds.     See  Wustenfeld. 

Jastrow,  a.     a  Dictionary  of  the  Targumin.     London  and  New  York, 

1886-1903. 
Jastrow,    Morris,    Jr.    Die    Religion   Babyloniens   und   Assyriens. 

Giessen,  1905-1912. 
Jeremias,  a.     The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Ancient  East. 

London  and  New  York,  191 1. 
Jewish  Encyclopedia.     New  York,  1901-1906. 
Johns,  C.  H.  W.     Assyrian  Deeds  and  Documents,  etc.    Cambridge, 

1898-1901. 
Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Laws,  Contracts,  and  Letters.   New  York, 

1904. 
Josephus  Flavius,  Genuine  Works,  by  Wm.  Whiston.  New  York,  1824. 

Opera.     Niese  Berlin,  1 887-1 897. 
Julian  the  Apostate  (or  Julianas  der  AhtrUnnige),  by  J.  G.  E.  Hoffmann. 

Leiden,  1880. 
JusTi,  F.     Handbuch  der  Zendsprache.     Leipzig,  1864. 
KAT — Die   Keilinschriften    und    das    Alte    Testament.     2nd    edition, 

Giessen,  1883. 
KB — ■Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek.     Berlin,  1889. 
King,  L.  W.     Babylonian  Magic  and  Sorcery.     I>ondon,  1896.  ' 
Knudtzon,  K.  L.     Assyrische  Gebete  an  den  Sonnengott.     Leipzig,  1892. 
KoHLER   and   Ungnad.     Assyrische   Rechtsurkunden.     Leipzig,    1915; 

Hundert  Ansgewdhlte  Rechtsurkunden.     Leipzig,  191 1. 

KoHLER,  J.,   Peiser,  F.  E.,  and  Ungnad,  A.    Hammurabi's  Gesetz. 

Leipzig,  1904-1911. 
KU — Kohler  and  Ungnad. 

KuGLER,  F.  X.     Sternkunde  und  Sterndienst  in  Babel.     Munster,  1907. 
Lane,  Edward  William.     The  Thousand  and  One  Nights  or  the  Arabian 

Nights  Entertainments.     New  York,  1848. 

An  Arabic-English  Lexicon.    London  and  Edinburgh,  1 883-1 893, 

Langdon,    Stephen.    Building    Inscriptions   of  the   Neo-Babylonian 

Empire.     Gunther,  1905. 
Levy,  J.     Chalddisches  Worterbuch.     Leipzig,  1881. 
Lidzbarski,  U.     Handbuch  der  nordsemitschen  Epigraphik,    Weimar, 

1898. 


394      Bibliography  of  Principal  Works 

LOT — An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  O.  T.     By  Driver,  q.  v. 

Loth,  Otto.     See  Fleischer's  Festschrift. 

LoTZ,  Wm.     Die  Inschriften  Tiglath  Pileser's  I.     Leipzig,  1880. 

Manetho.     See  Cory's  Ancient  Fragments, 

Manetho,  S.     Apotelesmatica.     Paris,  1862. 

Marti,    Karl.     Kurzgefasste   Grammatik   der   Aramdischen   Sprache. 

Beriin,  191 1. 
Maximus.     Anecdota  Astrologica.     Leipzig,  1877. 

Meinhold,  J.    Beitrdge  zur  Erkldrung  des  Buches  Daniel.    Leipzig,  1888. 
Meissner-Post.     Bauinschriften  Asarhaddon* s.     (See  BA,  iii,  p.  189- 

362.) 
Muss-Arnolt,  W.     a   Concise  Dictionary  of  the  Assyrian  Language. 

New  York,  1905. 
MVAG — Mitteilungen  der  Vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft.     Berlin,  1896. 
Nbp — Strassmaier's  Inschriften  von  Nabopolassar. 
Nd — Strassmaier's  Inschriften  von  Nabunaid. 
Ng — Strassmaier's  Inschriften  von  Nergalsharusur. 
Ngl— /J. 

Nk — Strassmaier's  Inschriften  von  Nahuchodonosor. 
Noldeke,  Th.     Manddische  Grammatik.     Halle,  1875. 

Grammatik  der  Neusyrischen  Sprache.     Leipzig,  1868. 

NoRBERG,  M.     Lexidion  Cod.  Naz.     Hofniae,  1817. 

Olmstead,  Dr.  A.  T.     Western  Asia  in  the  Days  of  Sargon  of  Assyria. 

New  York,  1908. 
Onkelos,  Targum  of.     See  Walton's  Polyglot. 
Peek,  Collection  of  Sir  Henry.     Inscribed  Babylonian  Tablets.     Part  II, 

edited  by  T.  G.  Pinches,  London  (no  date). 
Peiser,    F.    E.     Babylonische    Vertrdge   der   Berliner    Museums,    etc. 

Berlin,  1890. 

Skizze  der  Babylonischen  Gesellschaft.     MVAG,  1896. 

Peshitto.     See  Walton's  Polyglot. 

Petermann,  H.     Pentateuchus  Samaritanus.     Berlin,  1872. 

Petrie,  W.  M.  F.     a  History  of  Egypt.     London,  1896. 

Phillips,  Geo.     The  Doctrine  of  Addai  the  Apostle.     London,  1876. 

Pinches,  T.  G.     The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Historical  Records 

of  Assyria  and  Babylonia.     London  and  New  York,  1902. 
PoGNON,  H.     Inscriptions  Semitigues  de  la  Syrie.     Paris,  1907. 
Polyhistor,  Alexander.     See  Cory's  Ancient  Fragments. 
Prescott,  W.  H.     History  of  Philip  the  Second.     1855. 
Prince,  J.  D.     A  Critical  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Daniel.    Leipzig, 

1899. 
PSBA — Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archceology. 
VT'R.— Princeton  Theological  Revieiv. 
R — The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Western  Asia.     London,  186 1  f. 


Bibliography  of  Principal  Works      395 

Ranke,  H.    Early  Babylonian  Personal  Names.    Philadelphia,  1905. 
Rawlinson,    George.     The   Five   Great   Monarchies   of  the   Ancient 

Eastern  World,  1862-67. 

Bampton  Lectures  for  1859  (The  Historical  Evidences  of  the  Truth 

of  the  Scripture  Records   Stated). 
Records  of  the  Past.     London,  1875  and  1 873-1 881. 
Revue  d'Assyriologie. 
Rogers,  R.  W.     The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.    New  York, 

1908. 
Saadya's  Version  of  the  Pentateuch.     See  Walton's  Polyglot. 
Sachau,  Edward.     Festschrift.    Berlin,  1815. 

Aramdische  Papyrus.     Berlin,  191 1. 

Samaritan  Targum.     See  Petermann. 

Sayce,  a.  H.     Higher  Criticism  and  the   Verdict  of  the  Monuments. 

London,  1894. 
ScHECHTER,  S.     Documents  of  Jewish  Sectaries.     Fragments  of  a  Zado- 

kite  Work.     Cambridge,  19 10. 
Schorr,  Moses.    Altbabylonische  Rechtsurkunden.    Wien,  1907. 
ScHRANK,  W.     Babylonische  Siihnriten,  etc.     Leipzig,  1908. 
Schroder,  P.     Die  Phdnizische  Sprache.    Halle,  1869. 
Siegfried  and  Strack.     Lehrbuch  der  neuhebrdischen  Sprache.    Leipzig, 

1884. 
Smend,  R.     Die  Weisheit  des  Jesus  Sirach.     Berlin,  1906. 
Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible.     New  York,  1870. 
Smith,   W.    Robertson.     Kinship  and   Marriage  in   Early  Arabia. 

Cambridge,  1885. 
Spriegel,  Fr.     Die  altpersischen  Keilinschriften,  etc.     Leipzig,  1881. 
Steingass,  F.     English-Arabic  Dictionary.     London,  1882. 
Strabo.     Rerum  Geographicarum,  etc.     Leipzig,  1829. 
Strack,  Hermann  L.     Die  Spriiche  Jesus\  des  Sohnes  Sirachs.    Leip- 
zig, 1903. 

Lehrbuch  der  neuhebrdischen  Sprache.    See  Siegfried. 

Strassmaier,  J.  N.     Die  Inschriften  von  Nabuchodonosor,  Nobonidus^ 

Cyrus,  Cambyses,  and  Darius.     Leipzig,  1 889-1 897. 
SwETE,  H.  B.     The  Old  Testament  in  Greek.     Cambridge,  1899. 
Tallquist,    K.    L.     Neu-babylonisches   Namenbuch   zu   den   Geschdft- 

surkunden  aus  der  zeit  des  Samassumukin  bis  Xerxes.     (Acta.  soc. 

F.,  Tom.  xxxii,  No.  2,  1905.) 
Die  Assyrische  Beschworungsserie  Maklu.     (Acta  Soc.  F.,  Tom. 

XX,  No.  6,  1894.) 
Targum  of  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel.     See  Walton's  Polyglot. 
Theodotion's  Translation  of  Daniel  in  Swete's  edition  of  the  LXX. 
Thompson,   R.   C.     The  Devils  and  Evil  Spirits  in  Babylonia,  etc. 

London,  1903-1904. 


39^      Bibliography  of  Principal  Works 

Thompson,  R.  C.     The  Reports  of  the  Magicians  and  Astrologers  of 

Nineveh  and  Babylon.     I^ondon,  1900. 
TiELE,  C.  P.     Babylonische-Assyrische  Geschichte.     Gotha,  1886. 
ToLMAN,  H.  C.     Ancient  Persian  Lexicon,  etc.     New  York,  1908. 
TuKE,  D.  H.     Dictionary  of  Psychological  Medicine,     1892. 
VAB — Vorderasiatische  Bibliothek. 

VASD — Vorderasiatische  Schriftdenkmaler,     Leipzig,  1907, 
Victoria  Institute,  Transactions  of. 
Vogue,  Le  Conte  de.     Inscriptions  SSmitiques,  Syrie  Centrale.    Paris, 

1868-1877. 
VoN  Longerke,  C.     Das  Buch  Daniel.    Konigsberg,  1855. 
Vorderasiatische  Schriftdenkmaler.     Leipzig,  1907. 
VSD — Vorderasiatische  Schriftdenkmaler,     Leipzig,  1907. 
Vulgate,  Latin.    See  Walton's  Polyglot. 
Walton,  B.     Biblia  Sacra  Polyglotta.    London,  1657-1661. 
Weidner,  E.  F.     Handbuch  der  Bdbylonischen  Astronomie.     Leipzig, 

1915. 

Weissbach,  F.  H.  Die  Keilinschriften  der  Achameniden.  See  VAB. 
Leipzig,  191 1. 

Weissbach,  F.  H.  Die  Achdmenideninschriften  zweiter  Art.  Leipzig, 
1890. 

Die  Altpersischen  Keilinschriften.     Leipzig,  1893-1908. 

Wellhausen,  Julius.  Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Israel.  Edin- 
burgh, 1885. 

WiLCKEN,  Ulrich.  Griechische  Ostraka  aus  Aegypten  und  Nubien, 
Leipzig,  1899. 

Wilkinson,  J.  G.  The  Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians. 
Boston,  1885. 

WiNCKLER,  H.     Der  Thontafelfund  von  El-Amarna.     Berlin,  1889. 

Tel-el-Amarna  Letters.     New  York,  1896. 

Die  Keilinschriften  Sargons.     Leipzig,  1889. 

Wright,  C.  H.  H.     Daniel  and  Its  Critics.     London,  1906. 

Wright,  W.     The  Chronicle  of  Joshua  the  Stylite.    Cambridge,  1882. 

Arabic  Grammar.     Third  Edition,  Cambridge,  1896. 

WusTENFELT,  FERDINAND.  Das  Lcben  Muhammed's  nach  Muhammed 
Ibn  Ishak,  etc.     G6ttingen,  1858. 

Yale  Oriental  Series,  Babylonian  Texts.    New  Haven,  1915. 

ZA — Zeitschrift  far  Assyriologie. 

ZDMG — Zeitschrift  der  deutschen  morgenldndischen  Gesellschaft. 

Zehnpfund-Langdon.  Die  neubabylonischen  Kdnigsinschriften,  Leip- 
zig, 1912. 

Zeitschrift  fiir  Aegyptische  Sprache. 

Zimmern,  H.     Beitrdge  zur  Kenntniss  der  hdh.  Religion,      Leipzig,  190I. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECT  MATTER,  SOURCES,  ETC, 


Abgar,  32,  141 

Abu-Habba  cylinder,  17,  122 
Abydenus,  33,  48,  57,  58,  289,  334 
Accadian  words    in    Babylonian, 

339 
Adad-Nirari,  11 
Alexander,    163,    165,    272,    274, 

335-337 
Amasis,  39 
Amelu,  121 
Anachronism,  276 
Antiochus  Epipnanes,  167 
Aramaic,  30,  31;  words  for  king 

in,    94,     113,     182,     183,     192; 

rada  and  kavash  not  Aramaic, 

96;   foreign  words  in,  319-322; 

words  for  wise  in,  374-377 
Aramean,  179 
Ararat,  116 
Arrian,  6,  165 
Artaxerxes  I.,  170 

II.,  136,  140,  228 

Ill,  136,  228,  229 

Asharidu,  36 

Ashkenaz,  155 

Ashurbanipal,    12,    40,    67,    112, 

116,  139,  306 
Ashuretililani,  40,  136 
Ashumasirpal,  36,  67 
Asnappef,  6 
Assyrian  records,  4,   14,    16,  20, 

22,  25,  26,  et  al. 
Astyages,  38,  67,  269 
Azariah,  10 


B 


Babylon,  records  of,  12,  20,  et  al.; 
two  kings  of,  at  the  same  time, 
106, 107-108;  different  meanings 
of  the  phrase  "king  of  Babylon," 
112,    113;    difference    between 


"king  of  Babylon"  and  "king 
of  Chaldea,"  114;  conquest  of, 
by  Cyrus,  149;  taken  by 
Medes,  151;  conquest  of,  by 
Darius  Hystaspis,  244-247 

Banu,  341  f.,  347 

Bartholomae,  139 

Behistun  inscription,  15,  39,  121, 
142,  154,  156,  177,  214,  238, 
242,  245,  249,  261 

Behrmann,  161 

Belshazzar,  spelling  of  name  no 
indication  of  late  date,  10-15; 
testimony  of  the  monuments 
as  to  a  man  of  that  name,  10 1- 
103;  not  king  over  the  empire  of 
Nabunaid,  106;  king  of  Babylon 
part  of  one  year,  106;  king  of 
only  part  of  Nabunaid 's  domin- 
ion, 107-110;  son  of  both 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  Nabunaid, 
1 17-122;  in  what  sense  treated 
as  king  by  his  contemporaries, 
122-126;  not  mentioned  in  the 
Greek  historians,  167 

Belteshazzar,  30-36 

Berosus,  3, 48, 55-58, 119.289, 291, 

334 
Bertholdt,  86,  277,  279 
Bevan,  44,  63,  370 
Bezold,  121,  130 

Bira,  fortress,  not  court,  280-282 
Breasted,  79 


Cambyses,  39,  164,  170 

Carchemish  IX,  50,  52,  54-56, 
60,  64,  74-80 

Chaldeans,  excursus  on  the,  341- 
366;  king  of,  114;  Darius  the 
Mede  made  king  of,  151;  king- 
dom of,  different  from  that  of 
the  Persians,  173,  174,  200;  and 


397 


398 


Index 


Chaldeans —  Continued 

from  that  of  Babylon,  114; 
people  of,  326-329;  priests  of, 
330-337;  in  the  vScriptures, 
329-330;  in  the  classics,  330- 
339;  in  Babylonian,  337-339; 
in  Aramaic,  339-341 ;  wise  men 
of,  367-389 

Chronicles,  the  Book  of,  and 
the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  52,  53, 
64-66;  and  the  expedition 
against  Jerusalem,  73 

Chronology.  Different  ways  of 
reckoning  the  years  of  a  king, 
viii,  68;  years  of  the  beginning 
of  the  reign,  49;  different 
datings  of  the  reign  of  same 
king  over  different  countries, 
1 1 5-1 17;  double  dating  of  the 
same  document,  129-133;  meaji- 
ing  of  iddan  "time,"  289-291 

Clay,  Albert  T.,  121,  125,  130 

Codomannus,   228,  272 

Confusion,  fallacy  of  asserting,  128 

Conspirators  against  Smerdis,  39, 

164,  170 

Cook,  S.  A.,  118,  120 

Cornill,  63,  99,  150,  157,  158,  161, 

165,  264,  271,  272,  277,  284,  297, 

324,  369 

Curtius,  Quintus,  165,  335  f. 

Cylinder  of  Antiochus,  122;  of 
Cyrus,  15,  17,  39,  122,  126,  141, 
153.  260 

Cyrus,  17,  34,  38,  39,  67,  103,  109, 
112,  116,  124,  129,  134,  164, 
169,  233  f.,  307;  religious  views 
of,  310;  conquest  of  Babylon, 
149,  265-272;  suzerain  to 
Darius  the  Mede,  133-135 

D 

Daniel,  name  not  mentioned  on 
the  monuments,  vi;  nor  is  his 
name  likely  to  be  found  on 
them,  25;  called  Belteshazzar, 
vi;  Belshazzar,  the  abbrevi- 
ated form  of  Belteshazzar, 
found  on  monuments,  vii,  34: 
ancestors   not   known,   vii,     30 

Daniel,  book  of,  on  the  expedition 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  64;  on  the 
life  of  Darius  the  Mede,  221  f.; 
use  of  term  Chaldean  in,  329  f. ; 
statements  as  to  the  wise  men, 
370  f. 


Darius  Codomannus,  272 

Darius  Hystaspis,  29,  38,  39,  40, 
119,  164;  and  the  war  against 
Greece,  164-165;  treats  Medi- 
ans as  equals  of  Persians,  154; 
not  confused  with  Darius  the 
Mede,  160-162;  his  system  of 
government,  201-203,  211-220; 
not  reflected  in  Darius  the 
Mede,  220  f;  family  of,  223- 
237;  age  when  he  became  king, 
238-240;  manner  in  which  he 
became  king,  240-243;  names 
of  kingdoms  over  which  he  ruled, 
243-244;  relations  to  other 
kings,  244-247;  conquest  of 
Babylon  by,  244-246;  method 
of  government,  247;  decrees  of, 
248;  character  of,  259  f.;  not 
confused  with  Xerxes,  264, 
272;  religious  views  of,  31; 
proper  names  in  his  inscrip- 
tions, 39 

Darius  the  Mede.  Meaning  of 
the  word  Darius,  139;  sub-king 
imder  Cyrus,  129-134;  prob- 
ably same  as  Gobryas,  133- 
143;  no  tablets  dated  from  his 
reign,  134-137;  new  tablet  of 
Gobryas,  136-137;  age  when 
he  became  king,  137;  a  Mede, 
141;  king  of  the  Chaldeans, 
but  not  of  Media,  or  Persia, 
157-158,  I73-I74».  186-192;  not 
one  of  the  four  kings  of  Persia 
of  Dan.  2,  173;  not  con- 
fused with  Darius  Hystaspis, 
200-J220;  not  a  reflection  of 
Darius  Hystaspis,  since  they 
were  of  different  nationality, 
224;  family,  224,  and  age,  238; 
became  king  in  different  wajrs, 
240,  ruled  over  different  king- 
doms, 243,  had  different  rela- 
tions with  other  kings,  244, 
pursued  different  metnods  of 
government,  247,  had  different 
relations  with  those  about  them, 
253,  and  were  different  in 
character,  259;  not  mentioned 
in  the  Greek  historians,  167- 
169;  statements  of  Daniel  with 
regard  to,  221-223;  and  the  den 
of  lions,  249-253,  316;  relation 
to  Daniel,  253-259;  character  of, 
259;  decrees  of,  298,  309-318 


Index 


399 


Darius  II,  228 

Dates,  52,  130-132 

Delitzsch,  35 

De  Wette,  43 

Dimgal,  341  f. 

Diocles,  290 

Diodorus  Siculus,  334 

Divinity  of  kings,  312 

Driver,  45,  62,  69,  100,  161,  162, 

200,  220,  284,  325,  369 
Duplicates,  250-253 


£ 


Ecbatana,  137,  141,  143,  153,  210 
Edicts  of  the  kings  of  Babylon  not 

impossible,   296-298 
Edicts  of  the   Caesars,   299-301; 

of  the  Inquisition,  301 
Egypt,  7,  9,  10,  13-15,  et  al. 
Elam,  156 
Era,  130 

Esarhaddon,  6,  12,  67,  107,  112 
Eusebius,  3,  57,  291,  293 
Evident,  self,  296 
Evi^-Merodach,  65,  100,  123,  266 


F 


Fallacy  of  positing  the  sources  of 

an  author's  information,  145 
Farrar,  Dean,  vi,  18,  24-26 
Freeman,  Edward,  28,  251 
Furnace,  fiery,  311 


G  exchanged  for  k,  338 
Gutium,  III,  141,  152-153,201 


Herodotus,  4,  8,  19,  21,  80,  107, 
109,  138,  139.  I53»  215,  238, 
240, 242,  246,  249,  269,  331 

Hostages,  32,  66 

Hystaspis,  139,  140 


Ibn  Hisham,  305 
Impossible,  use  of  the  term,  296 
Inscriptions,  building,  37,  38,  126; 
historical,  39,  126 


Jehoiachin,  65,  66 


Jehoiakim,  43-53,  60,  63,  107 
Jeremiah,    61,    69-73;    and    the 

reign  of  Jehoiakim,  49-56,  66; 

and  the  Chaldeans,  69-73;  and 

the     expedition    against     Car- 

chemish,  75-80 
Jeroboam  II,  11 
Johns,  C.  H.  W.,  29,  118,  120 
Josephus,   35.   54,   55,   289,   290, 

291,  and  often 
Justi,  176 


K  exchanged  with  g,  338 
Killing  of  the  wise  men,  313 
King,   use  of  words  for,    85-94, 

112,  113 
Kings,  the  book  of,  and  the  reign 
of  Jehoiakim,  45-48;  and  the 
captivity  of  Judah,  66;  and  the 
expedition  against  Jerusalem,  73 
Kings,  married  wives  of  pre- 
decessors, 119;  frequently  taken 
into  captivity,  64,  65;  two  over 
same  country  at  once,  106-108; 
the  four  kings  of  Persia  men- 
tioned in  Daniel,  162;  Persian 
kings  mentioned  in  the  O.  T., 
165-172 


I^nd,  174-176;  words  for,  in 
Babylonian,  189;  Arabic,  189; 
Hebrew,  189-192;  Persian,  189; 
Susian,  189 

Lane,  Edward,  35,  117 

Langdon,  37,  iii,  289,  303 

Laws  of  kings  of  Persia,  313 

Lengerke,  von,  299 

Letters  of  the  Babylonians,  19,  125 

Lidzbarski,  29 

Limmu  of  Nineveh,  130 

Lions,  249-253,  316 

M 

Maccabees,  First  book  of,,  168 

Second  book  of,  168 

Manasseh,  12,  65,  310 

Manetho,  3 

Mattathias,  168 

Media,  1 51-158;  kings  of,  108; 
helped  to  conquer  Babylo* 
149,  151-158;  relation  to  PersiJ*., 


400 


Index 


Media — Continued 

154,  231;  Daniel  never  calls 
anyone  king  of  Media,  156; 
Xerxes  called  king  of  Media  on 
contract  tablets,  154,  155 

Megasthenes,  48,  57,  58,  289,  334 

Meissner,  120 

Menahem,  11 

Menander,  3 

Merenptah,  10 

Merodach-Baladan,  10,  13,  124 

Method  pursued  in  this  book,  v 

Minni,  156 

Muss-Amolt,  35 


N 


Nabopolassar,  37 

Nabunaid,  13,  15,  17,  20,  38,  40, 
67,  loi,  no,  III,  114,  121,  133, 
136,  307;  last  king  of  the 
Babylonian  empire,  loi ;  dreams 
of,  307;  chronicle,  15,  17,  153; 
cylinder,  37 

Names,  ways  of  writing  proper,  in 
Babylonian,  28-36;  in  building 
and  other  inscriptions,  37-41; 
dual,  138-139;  new,  vi,  xi,  30, 
366 

Naqs-i-Rustam    inscription,    143, 

177,  211,  214,  22A,  242 

Nebuchadnezzar,  Aramaic  form 
of  the  Babylonian  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, 167;  expedition  in  the 
third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  vii, 
ix;  in  Palestine  when  father 
died,  viii;  inscriptions  of,  37; 
and  the  battle  of  Carchemish, 
64,  74-79;  sons  of,  100;  early 
Greek  historians  do  not  mention 
him,  167;  madness  of,  283-295; 
mad  "seven  times,"  289-291; 
dreams  of,  297  f.,  318;  character 
of,  303-307 

Necho,  37,  50,  52,  53,  65,  67,  75, 
80,  107;  documents -bearing  on 
his  reign,  53,  79;  conquest  of 
Carchemish,  75-79;  supremacy 
over  Palestine,  79-80 

Nicolaus  of  Damascus,  3,  229 


Oaths  by  gods  and  kings,  in,  125 
Officials,  20,  181-183,  203-206 


Omri,  II,  12 

Opinion  versus  evidence,  128 


People  and  nation,  words  for, 
192-199 

Persepolis  inscription,  212 

Persia,  Daniel  not  ignorant  of  its 
history,  147-149;  Xerxes  called 
king  of,  154-155;  Daniel's  men- 
tion of,  157-158;  reference  to  it 
in  Dan.  vii,  6,  163;  the  four 
'.kings  of,  referred  to  in  Dan.  xi, 
'2, 164;  system  of  government  of, 
derived  from^  the  Assyrians, 
200-220;  religion  of,  309-312: 
laws  of,  314 

Persian  documents,  19,  21,  39,  40 

Person  defined,  83 

Petrie,  14,  80,  116 

Phenicians,  archives  of,  289 

Philostratus,  289 

Pihatu,  160 

Pinches,  102,  134,  136 

Pittacus,  39 

Pognon,  40,  no,  116, 117 

Prince,  44,  129 

Province,  142 

Psammetichus,  12 

PSBA,  125 

Pythagoras,  334 


Rab  defined,  386  f. 
Rameses  II,  138 
Ramessids,  13,  14 
Reflection,    argument    from,   re- 
futed, 220-263 
Religion  of  Persian  kings,  310-312 
Resh,  the  letter,  104 


S  before  d  changed  to  1,  338 

Samaria,  11,  12 

Sargon,  5,  11,  18,  187,  201;  estab- 
lished the  satrapial  system,  201, 
220 

Satrap,  141-143,  175-186,  200; 
satrapial  system  of  government 
derived  from  the  Assyrians, 
200-220;  one  hundred  and 
twenty  satraps  in  kingdom  of 
Darius     the    Mede,     209-211; 


Index 


401 


Satrap — Continued 
satraps    of    Sargon,    203-209; 
of  Herodotus,  215-220;  of  Da- 
rius Hystaspis,  21 1-2 15 
Sayce,  30,  100,  161 
Schorr,  120 
Schrader,  122 

Scriptures,  the  principal  passages 
discussed: 
Daniel  i,  i:  43-59,  62-82,  86; 
i,  I7:372;ii.  2:324,  376-385; 
ii,  13:  298;  ii,  48:  370,  385- 
389;  iii,  6,  29:  298;  iv,  i:  298; 
iv,  25-36:  283-294;  V,  i:  II, 
29,  99-114.  1 17-122;  V,  31: 
151-153.238-240;  vi,  i:  134^., 
175;  vi,  7-9:  298;  vi,  25-27: 
298;  vi,  29:  129;  vi,  25:  173- 
199;  vii,  i:  114,  244;  vii,  6: 
160,  163,  264;  viii,  2:  277- 
282;  ix,  i:  134;  xi,  2:  160,  162, 
163-172,  271;  xi,  3:274 
Ezra  iv,  10:  6 
Chronicles,  Second,  xxvi,  6,  7. 

,  73 

Kings,  First,  xx,  14:  142 

Kings,    Second,  xxiii,    36,    37; 
45-48;  xxiv,  1-7:  73 

Jeremiah  xxv,  1-9:  49-52,  68- 
79;  Ii,  27-29:  266 
Sennacherib,  12,  33,  130 
Septuagint,  35,  293 
Sesostris,  138 
Shabaka,  ir6 
Shaknu,  180 
Shalmaneser,  6,  7,    II,    47,    67, 

Shangu,  30 

Shin,  104 

Shishak,  10 

Silence,  argument  from,  in  general, 
1-23 ;  in  the  case  of  Daniel,  24- 
42 ;  in  the  case  of  the  expedition 
against  Jerusalem,  43  f. 

Sira,  168 

Slave,  28 

Smerdis,  39 

Smith,  W.  R.,  117 

Sources  of  information  bearing  on 
the  book  of  Daniel  xv,  3-5; 
silence  of,  5-22;  with  regard  to 
the  name  of  Daniel,  27  f.;  for 
the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  45-58, 
81;  for  the  name  and  reign  of 
Belshazzar,  101-105,  123-126; 
sources  known  to  Daniel  and 
26 


unknown  to  us,  145-150;  es- 
pecially of  the  history  of  Persia, 
3-25,  166-172;  and  Assyria, 
4-26 

Spiegel,  38,  176 

Strabo,  334 

Strassmaier,  29,  et  passim. 

Susa,  subject  to  Babylon  in  time  of 
Belshazzar,  277;  not  a  court 
but  a  fortress,  280 


Tablets,  27-36,  125,  134  et  al. 
Taharka,  12,  116 
Tallquist,  27 
Theodotion,  289 
Thompson,  R.  C.,  289 
Tiglath-Pileser,   11,  20,  67,   116, 

139 
Times,  289-291 
Tolman,  139 
Tyre,  12 


U 


Ugbaru,  39,  40,  102,  109,  133,  230 
Ummanu,  341  f. 
Ushtanni,  137,  143 


Vessels  carried  away  by  Nebu-. 

chadnezzar,  66 
Vogu6,  dc,  27 

W 

Winckler,  139 

Wise  men,  367-389;  Daniel's 
relation  to,  370-372;  not  wrong 
for  a  Jew  to  be  a  wise  man,  372- 
374.  376;  meaning  of  the  word 
in  Aramaic,  Arabic,  Hebrew, 
Babylonian,  and  Ethiopic,  374- 
375;  discussion  of  ashshaph, 
gazer,  and  other  words  em- 
ployed in  Daniel  ii,  376-383; 
wise  man  might  have  been  an 
astrologer,  383-385 


Xenophon,  138, 142,  209, 260 
Xerxes,    155,    164,   226-236,   307; 
spelling  of  name,   105;  son  of 


40:2 


Index 


Xerxes — Continued 

Darius  Hystaspis,  227;  not 
confused  with  latter  by  Daniel, 
160-162,  264  f.;  dreams  of,  307; 
and  the  expedition  against 
Greece,  164--165,  272 


Yale  cylinder  of  Nabimaid,  365- 
366 


Year  of  the  beginning  of  the  reign, 
68 ;  different  ways  of  reckoning, 
68-69;  of  Daniel  iii,  more 
properly  *Hime,"  289 


Zedekiah,  31,  65,  66,  107 
Zop3rrus,  246 

Zoroastrianism    of    the    Achae- 
menids,  310 


J   -CTT^'   <^' 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


KB    a  1%8  7  0 


IN  STACKS 


RECP  LB 


f£Bl4'68-iOPM 


Due  end  of  WINTER  Quarter 


subjea  to  recall  airer 


jitBrOLD    MAR    3 


JAN  2  0  1975  6  X 


REG.  GIR.   JAN  2  0  75 


-m 


9W7$ 


ivnv 


JA^^26^S3 


MAR    2  72  54 


72-2PIVI  G  9 


:lG.  Glli, 


^28- 


,R£C.  CIS.    JUN  2  2  1982 


LD  21A-45to-9,'67 
(H5067sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


'  ti 


i     ' 


•^  /y-X 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD^77^3S7fl 


I 


\ 


